211 réponses à ce sujet

[Ferretinabun]

jpbreon - Bravo! (Brava?)

That's terribly insightful.

Though I would add that there aren't actually too many clues in the game that Bhelen is going to be the pioneering reformer he turns out to be - I think I can remember one or two merchants saying he was good for trade, but I don't remember a single mention of his opinions of the casteless or the caste system in general. In fact, seeing as he is sitting at the top of the pecking order by right of birth, one might assume he would be the one most likely to conserve the caste system, not uproot it.

[fgalkin]

@jpbreon: Yes, we're all terrible cultural imperialists, introducing foreign cultures to such  monstrous and terrible ideas as "rights for all sapients," and "social mobility."
I feel so ashamed. We're terrible, evil people.

(Never mind that Bhelen's reforms come from within and are not imposed from the outside. He is just as ignorant of the surface world as any noble Dwarf is. His reforms just so happen to resonate more with modern Western civilization, and the Grey Warden's own culture than Harromount's rigid traditionalism. If I were engaging in imposing Western values on Thedas, I'd start with Ferelden. Too bad there is no option to do away with the monarchy entirely).

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[jpbreon]

@Ferretinabun

True, the opinions of where Bhelen would push the culture are sparse, but the big indicator is hit - opening for trade. Traditionally the biggest factor in how a culture evolves is by the exchange of ideas that happens while trading. Ancient Egypt, for example. There are other clues - using the Carta, even cynically.

@fgalkin

Hyperbole. I never made any indication of the morality of any the reforms, nor endorsed any of Orzammar's traditions. I simply noted the reason people feel comfortable with Bhelen, and how they can rationalize their actions without appearing overtly self-interested.

Even BioWare acknowledges this. In the epilogue it mentions how Bhelen must consolidate power, weaken the Assembly, and so forth. This is because his reforms are forced, top-down, by diktat. Liberalization of cultural values can't happen by force, and it certainly can't happen by outside parties. This is why Iran is a an authoritarian theocracy with a reactionary culture, and China is liberalizing at breakneck speeds. One is continually interfered with in the hopes of cultural revolution, the other is left alone.

Bhelen doesn't need to be a surface cheerleader, or even think about it at all. The appearance of outside interference to install him (in the game, the exact same can be said for Harrowmont - ideally the choice for succession would have no influence from the player but that is not possible for the game) and his resulting actions would surely cause blowback, which it does, Bhelen then will consolidate power, setting the stage for an even more reactionary government - setting back the goals the player professes anyway.

[KnightofPhoenix]

jpbreon wrote...

I was not surprised, at all, to see the massive Bhelen worship. I'll tell you why: Bhelen represents the real world impetuses that drive Western cultures to remold and remake foreign cultures with differing and often opposing values systems. If you doubt this, just read some of the replies to this thread where people list their reasoning.

I'm not western. 

In short, Bhelen is DAO's version of the Shah of Iran.

No, this shows a rather superficial understanding of Middle-Eastern politics. 
The Shah of Iran was not the liberal the West portrayed him to be. He was when it came to the upper class, but to subjugate the middle and lower classes and prevent them from forming a socialist and leftist opposition, he, guess what, supported religious and conservative groups in the hopes that their social charity would weaken the opposition. Same logic Sadate of Egypt, and the Turkish military employed. He sowed the seeds to his own destruction, much like the latter two.

Bhelen's reforms on the otherhand directly weakens the upper class, in favor of a stronger merchant caste, aka the middle class.The Shah's policy were very much different. 

he will ply Orzammar's culture to more resemble the foreigner's culture, thereby serving the goals and interest of the foreigners themselves. 

Yea here we go with the sanctity of culture, even if that culture is driving the entire nation to the ground. 

This isn't about culture. It's about logic.

Orzammar can't survive and thrive without trade. So Bhelen expands trade.
Orzammar can't keep fighting darkspawn 24/7 without manpower. So Bhelen recruits the casteless as that manpower.
Orzammar can't survive if it keeps a rigid caste strcuture, so Bhelen throws it to the garbage where it belongs. 

This is in Orzammar's interests. Nay, this is about Orzammar's survival. Should other nations benefit from it is irrelevant. Just because the "foreigner" is happy doens't mean you wouldn't be either.

As for Bhelen's government becoming reactionary. Since your entire comparison with Iran is flawed and your understanding superficial, then I wouldn't need to elaborate more, but I will.  

Bhelen's reforms are not conservative, unlike the Shah (yea compared to his socialist predecessors, he was a conservative and certainly illiberal). His reforms benefit most of Orzammar except a number of the upper-class, which is the complete opposite in Iran.  Bhelen was not put in power by a foreign nation, and his predecessors were not kicked out by same said foreigners. 

Bhelen combines reforms with prosperity, and that prosperity is not limited to upper class houses, but rather the middle class. Indeed, even surfacers and casteless would benefit and their income would increase. Add to that social mobility. Whatever reactionary forces would arise, would be subdued easily by the mere fact that most of the populace is benefitting from his reforms. 
That's where the idiots Sadate and the Shah erred. They were great for big business (which in the American mind, is liberalism at its finest), but the middle class and lower class suffered. 

EDIT: heck if anything, it's Harrowmont who'd be close to the Shah. 

Let's see, he is a conservative. Due to the unpopularity of his reign and popular dissent, he massacres them with an iron fist and becomes even more reactionary and regressive, to appease his upper class / big business puppeteers. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 février 2013 - 09:50 .

[Armados]

I played DA:O at least 8 times now and only once did I choose Bhelen. I did it as a Dwarf Commoner in order to support Rica. Of course, I was totally disgusted with my choice afterwards. Bhelen has zero redeeming qualities and has his head so far up his own ass you can't even see his neck. I certainly don't want a guy with absolutely no conscience whatsoever to be leader of anything. While I played different roles with a DN, I did feel like a stupid sucker every time given the obvious plot holes the OP pointed out.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Did you remember to read the epilogue after that DC playthrough? Because choosing Bhelen despite his lack of a conscience makes a lot more sense in light of it.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 11 février 2013 - 09:02 .

[ejoslin]

I'd rather have a leader who doesn't let personal attachments cloud his judgement, especially for a nation at war. Bhelen's only concern was Bhelen, but he knew that having a strong Orzammar was in his best interest.

[Wulfram]

ejoslin wrote...

I'd rather have a leader who doesn't let personal attachments cloud his judgement, especially for a nation at war. Bhelen's only concern was Bhelen, but he knew that having a strong Orzammar was in his best interest.

I wouldn't say Bhelen is immune to letting  his emotions cloud his judgement.  Just look at him flipping out in the Assembly if he loses, or his open glee at ordering Harrowmont's death.

[ejoslin]

Wulfram wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

I'd rather have a leader who doesn't let personal attachments cloud his judgement, especially for a nation at war. Bhelen's only concern was Bhelen, but he knew that having a strong Orzammar was in his best interest.

I wouldn't say Bhelen is immune to letting  his emotions cloud his judgement.  Just look at him flipping out in the Assembly if he loses, or his open glee at ordering Harrowmont's death.

Again, Bhelen's only concern was Bhelen.  And killing Harrowmont was actually a very good political move.  It was the first step in getting the assembly back under control.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

ejoslin wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

I'd rather have a leader who doesn't let personal attachments cloud his judgement, especially for a nation at war. Bhelen's only concern was Bhelen, but he knew that having a strong Orzammar was in his best interest.

I wouldn't say Bhelen is immune to letting  his emotions cloud his judgement.  Just look at him flipping out in the Assembly if he loses, or his open glee at ordering Harrowmont's death.

Again, Bhelen's only concern was Bhelen.  And killing Harrowmont was actually a very good political move.  It was the first step in getting the assembly back under control.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Harrowmont had elected to take Bhelen's victory on the chin. So, if there was a mutiny in the assembly, he wouldn't have been involved.

[TEWR]

ejoslin wrote...

Again, Bhelen's only concern was Bhelen.  And killing Harrowmont was actually a very good political move.  It was the first step in getting the assembly back under control.

Not really. The Assembly backs Bhelen when he's crowned, as it was through the word of a Paragon. Even Harrowmont decides to back Bhelen when the Paragon's word is told. I don't think Harrowmont would've been a problem.

The Assembly wasn't out of control at that point. Later on they would be, but that would be to his reforms. I'm not certain Harrowmont would've gone against his king's actions. And I think Bhelen may have taken things a bit too far by ordering a complete purge of every Harrowmont in existence.

I still support Bhelen, but only because the game forces me to choose either the inept politician Harrowmont or Bhelen the hack instead of my DN. Bhelen's better then Harrowmont, but I still find him to not be the right choice for king.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 13 février 2013 - 02:22 .

[Costin_Razvan]

ejoslin wrote...

I'd rather have a leader who doesn't let personal attachments cloud his judgement, especially for a nation at war. Bhelen's only concern was Bhelen, but he knew that having a strong Orzammar was in his best interest.

I strongly disagree that he only cares about himself. I think he genuinely cares about the casteless and Orzammar. He's not selfless mind you but to me how he treated Rica even before she had his child speaks volumes about person he really is.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 13 février 2013 - 03:43 .

[Ulmaric]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

ejoslin wrote...

I'd rather have a leader who doesn't let personal attachments cloud his judgement, especially for a nation at war. Bhelen's only concern was Bhelen, but he knew that having a strong Orzammar was in his best interest.

I strongly disagree that he only cares about himself. I think he genuinely cares about the casteless and Orzammar. He's not selfless mind you but to me how he treated Rica even before she had his child speaks volumes about person he really is.

>Bhelen tries to kill you if you're a DN
>Uses blackmail and extortion to gain leverage in political matters
>Personally tries to kill Harrowmont if you side with Harrowmont and does if you side with Bhelen
>The way he cares about his secret misteress and possibly others he has makes up for it

Ok.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

She didn't say that it makes up for Bhelen's other moral failings. She just said that Bhelen does care about Rica. (Which is in and of itself questionable, but I don't think it's disprovable from the evidence given in-game.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 22 février 2013 - 12:05 .

[Ulmaric]

What I'm really trying to draw attention to is the fact that she stated that the way Bhelen treated his mistress indicates he's truly a good person.

Just because you do one good thing (in this case we're assuming he cared for his mistress, which is barely "doing" anything) doesn't excuse the mountain of bull**** you pull off.

Furthermore I still maintain that Harrowmont is the better choice epilogue slides or no. In DA 2 there is a quest showing you what happens if you pick Bhelen as he has mercenaries hunting the remaining house of Harrowmont and I'm sure he is causing some sort of trouble other than that in the mean time.

Also if you pay attention to the slides, Bhelen dissolves the assembly, making him the sole ruler of Orzammar. Now I'll readily admit that I am heavily bias and not really ready to argue over the ethics of having a sole dictator over having an assembly, but it is my personal opinion that this is a step back for their politics. The pros and cons for picking Bhelen are these (keep in mind this comes from a person who values people of all classes and views absolute power as dangerous):

Pros:

The casteless are given more rights
The caste system itself starts to become less strict
Trade with the surface increases
Some of the thaigs are reclaimed.

Cons:

You are putting a madman into a role of absolute power
The future of the dwarves (referring to after Bhelen dies) will remain uncertain, possible heir system will make Bhelen's offspring take over, or worse, someone Bhelen chooses could take over

Normally I would side with Bhelen immediately, mainly because he's so effective. As a king, he can move things very fast and do the things that need to be done without anyone to stop him. This is all fine in times of war, but what about times of peace?

The only way Bhelen will not destroy the rights of his subjects or hurt their government is if the writers of everyone at dragon age simultaneously have a stroke and decide that bettering the lives of others is completely within Bhelen's character. I am already somewhat confused as it is to see Bhelen giving the casteless rights (even if it is for the defense of Orzammar). I can see why they would say he increased trade relations with the surface but honestly, even if he brought a golden age to Orzammar the likes of which no dwarf has ever seen, I would still choose Harrowmont. With Harrowmont I can see stability and fairness while in Bhelen I see only potential for long term destruction.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ChainsawNinjaZX wrote...
Furthermore I still maintain that Harrowmont is the better choice epilogue slides or no. In DA 2 there is a quest showing you what happens if you pick Bhelen as he has mercenaries hunting the remaining house of Harrowmont and I'm sure he is causing some sort of trouble other than that in the mean time.

And that was a very good move. That Harrowmont surviver was goign to Kal-Shirok, which hates Orzammar. Letting him go there can spell disaster. Eliminating him was the good move. 

Also if you pay attention to the slides, Bhelen dissolves the assembly, making him the sole ruler of Orzammar. Now I'll readily admit that I am heavily bias and not really ready to argue over the ethics of having a sole dictator over having an assembly

I don't think people really realize what the Assembly is. It's not democratic or republican. It's simply the upper caste that treats everyone else like crap talking maongst themselves. It's not even like the Senate in Rome pre-Empire, which could be checked by the populace and the tribune via legal means (and not to mention that rise of the populares faction). 

The Assembly is an authoritarian top-down body, except oligarchic instead of monopolized in the hands of one person.

Now you might think checks are always good regardless of how they are. But as we have seen numerous times throughout Orzammar's history, the Assembly is inefficient and destructive to Orzammar. They perpatuate an idiotic and oppressive system that is leading the dwarves to extinction. They almost caused the dwarves' annihilation if PAragon Aeducan didn't ignore them and take power from them in the first Blight. And now they have demonstrated how divisive they are in a crisis and what paralysis they can cause, paralysis that can cost the city's existence. 

What you have to realize is that Bhelen is not operating in "normal" cirucmstances. Orzammar's situation is dire and urgent. Its survival is on the line. They have to fight darkspawn 24/7 after the blight. If disolving the Assembly gives him the power to establish the reforms that are very much needed for their survival, then so be it. 
Furthermore, the precedent of temporarily disolving the Assembly and restoring it later exists and Bhelen could very well do that. 

You are putting a madman into a role of absolute power

How is he mad?
Continuing idiotic policies that are driving your entire species down for the sake of tradition is the epitome of madness. 

This is all fine in times of war, but what about times of peace? 

There is no time of peace. If you paid attention you'd know. The dwarves have to keep fightign darkspawn every day between each blight (aka centuries). 

 I am already somewhat confused as it is to see Bhelen giving the casteless rights (even if it is for the defense of Orzammar).

Because he's not an idiot. He realizes the obvious, Orzammar needs manpower. 

Furthermore it's of course very efficient from a personal point of view. If Bhelen wants to weaken the nobility (each house acts as patron to a warrior house), then bringing the casteless into his sphere and arming them means that House Aeducan has a considerable army in its own right. 

Quite genius, and a reform on the way to establish monopoly on legitimate use of  force, as Weber would say is an important factor in establishing a modern state. 

Harrowmont I can see stability and fairness while in Bhelen I see only potential for long term destruction.

Stability? That idiot fails to prevent a civil war if he doesn't have golems. And if he does have golems, he bans the casteless from going to the commons, and when they riot because going to the commons was an important life source, he unleashes the golems that should be fighting at the front on them and massacres them. That's stability and fairness? 

Are you people that blind? 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 25 février 2013 - 10:07 .

[Ulmaric]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


And that was a very good move. That Harrowmont surviver was goign to Kal-Shirok, which hates Orzammar. Letting him go there can spell disaster. Eliminating him was the good move. 

It may have been a "good move," but if he wasn't such an unbelievable dick in the first place it wouldn't have been necessary. Killing your political "enemy" is all well and good, but Harrowmont demonstrated that he was willing to follow Bhelen at the paragons behest. Even if the absolute worst case scenario  and all-out civil war between Bhelen and Harrowmont supporters happened WITH Harrowmont at the head, Bhelen would still theoretically win over more supporters due to the paragon's choice and still have absolute confidence that he will win kingship. What Bhelen is doing is oppressing not necessarily a minority, but a large group of people that did nothing wrong.

I don't think people really realize what the Assembly is. It's not democratic or republican. It's simply the upper caste that treats everyone else like crap talking maongst themselves. It's not even like the Senate in Rome pre-Empire, which could be checked by the populace and the tribune via legal means (and not to mention that rise of the populares faction). 

The Assembly is an authoritarian top-down body, except oligarchic instead of monopolized in the hands of one person.

Now you might think checks are always good regardless of how they are. But as we have seen numerous times throughout Orzammar's history, the Assembly is inefficient and destructive to Orzammar. They perpatuate an idiotic and oppressive system that is leading the dwarves to extinction. They almost caused the dwarves' annihilation if PAragon Aeducan didn't ignore them and take power from them in the first Blight. And now they have demonstrated how divisive they are in a crisis and what paralysis they can cause, paralysis that can cost the city's existence. 

While these hypothetical "people" don't realize what the assembly is, I don't appreciate you applying your assumption against my argument. The Assembly is a legislative body that is capable of superseding the ruling king or queen's power in certain instances. http://dragonage.wik...ki/The_Assembly

It may be a "top down authoritarian" body but these people aren't always on the same side. Different houses allow for a more fair representation of their people, which in this specific case works well with the caste system. The leaders are supposed to bring benefits to their house which will in turn help their warriors, nobles, and merchants.

In your one example (Paragon Aeducan) we see that the assembly was ineffective, but the same could be said for any other system of government that had to confront the blight, as it was the FIRST BLIGHT. And of course it hit dwarves the hardest as they were closest to the darkspawn menace. 

The second time we can see the assembly being a problem is right now (the choosing of a new king). It has been stated that this is the worst time for the assembly and therefore our first impressions of them
should be negative. To say they are ineffective in times of crisis is more than unfair on the basis that they were nowhere near their best. Like it was stated by many characters in the game (including by Harrowmont and Bhelen) the dwarves would be compelled to give assistance in the event of the blight had there been a king to give them. 

Is it a fragile system? Yes. Is it as bad as you're making it out to be? Hell no.

What you have to realize is that Bhelen is not operating in "normal" cirucmstances. Orzammar's situation is dire and urgent. Its survival is on the line. They have to fight darkspawn 24/7 after the blight. If disolving the Assembly gives him the power to establish the reforms that are very much needed for their survival, then so be it. 
Furthermore, the precedent of temporarily disolving the Assembly and restoring it later exists and Bhelen could very well do that. 

"Bhelen is not operating in 'normal' circumstances." You're right, if you take away the infighting he's operating in the BEST circumstances. During a blight the deep roads are at their quietest, plus all foreign threats are at war with the spawn (or in this case themselves AND the spawn). The only problem besides the obvious infighting that wouldn't normally be there is their economic status, which is ok but could be better.

After the blight, the darkspawn go back but at a much more weakened state. That, and the fact that your actions not only in this game but in the expansion can weaken/ quiet them even further makes it even easier to fight off the darkspawn to the point where they aren't even the biggest issue to worry about. 

Also, they aren't going to go to war with the surface, so these constant survival conditions you bring up are a bit more than over dramatic.

Finally, I have to say that you are INCREDIBLY naive if you think Bhelen would so much as consider restoring the assembly for any reason, not because it's a bad idea or system but because there is no personal gain in it.

How is he mad?
Continuing idiotic policies that are driving your entire species down for the sake of tradition is the epitome of madness.

Putting aside that he's a manipulative, murderous, sociopathic douchebag with a blacklist larger than a phonebook, I will give you some ground here. Madman may be too strong a word as he is of "sound mind." I should have said:

"You are putting absolute power into a
character of extremely questionable moral fiber.”

Still, I understand where you're coming from, but I think of it like this: would you rather choose a government where Hitler is in charge, but your nation is guaranteed to live (what's left of it), or would you rather have a government where there is still potential to stop a tyranny at the potential risk of disaster. Personally, I would prefer the latter.

There is no time of peace. If you paid attention you'd know. The dwarves have to keep fightign darkspawn every day between each blight (aka centuries).

The dwarves didn't seem so preoccupied or worried with the blight upon our visit, even though it was a blight, but even when they mention it in times there isn't a blight they don't seem so concerned with it at that time either. And as you've stated, they've been existing for centuries. That's centuries the assembly has been working, and as it turns out the dwarves are still alive.

Because he's not an idiot. He realizes the obvious, Orzammar needs manpower. 

Furthermore it's of course very efficient from a personal point of view. If Bhelen wants to weaken the nobility (each house acts as patron to a warrior house), then bringing the casteless into his sphere and arming them means that House Aeducan has a considerable army in its own right. 

Quite genius, and a reform on the way to establish monopoly on legitimate use of  force, as Weber would say is an important factor in establishing a modern state.

It is genius and it does help him accomplish his goals, but it is so out of his character that I have to question how well thought through this particular part of the story was written. This is the same man that attacked the assembly simply because he didn't get what he wanted. This doesn't inspire one to think of him as a rational character or even a strategist, and he doesn't seem like a sympathizer to the downtrodden either.

Stability? That idiot fails to prevent a civil war if he doesn't have golems. And if he does have golems, he bans the casteless from going to the commons, and when they riot because going to the commons was an important life source, he unleashes the golems that should be fighting at the front on them and massacres them. That's stability and fairness? 

Are you people that blind? 

The civil war you speak of is more of a small scale rebellion that Bhelen sympathizers start. It isn't as massive as a "civil war" at any scale. The same can be said of Bhelen, except the rebelling faction is house Harrowmont. As for banning the casteless, is it bad? Yes. Even if 100% (and I'm not saying all of them are, I'm saying this hypothetically) were criminals, they still deserve to have some access to civilization, at least the rights to buy food, but a good story should have disadvantages to choosing either side to make it a bit more interesting, just one side should be more ethical than the other. In Harrowmont's case, this should be the ethical dilemma of choosing him over Bhelen, and perhaps there should be a way to lessen or circumvent it, but there isn't in this case.

Overall I say you're the blind one as you bring a lot of bias against the assembly and ignore the fact that they have been fighting for a very, VERY long time against the darkspawn and still manage to live today. They don't need Bhelen to bring them out of speciies endangerment and he doesn't deserve to be a hero. Bhelen is a headstrong bastard and deserves to be treated as such.

Modifié par ChainsawNinjaZX, 26 février 2013 - 02:11 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

[quote]ChainsawNinjaZX wrote...
Killing your political "enemy" is all well and good, but Harrowmont demonstrated that he was willing to follow Bhelen at the paragons behest. Even if the absolute worst case scenario  and all-out civil war between Bhelen and Harrowmont supporters happened WITH Harrowmont at the head, Bhelen would still theoretically win over more supporters due to the paragon's choice and still have absolute confidence that he will win kingship. What Bhelen is doing is oppressing not necessarily a minority, but a large group of people that did nothing wrong.[/quote]

Flawed argument.
Harrowmont could accept Bhelens' authority, but others could still rebel in his name, as has happened numerous times in history. 

We only need to look at the epilogues to see who succeds and who does not. Harrowmont without golems gets assassinated and Orzammar falls in civil war. Bhelen, without golems, imposes himself. Eliminating his enemies is one such mean. The basic rule to succeed as a leader is actually knowing how to preserve power. 


[quote]
It may be a "top down authoritarian" body but these people aren't always on the same side. Different houses allow for a more fair representation of their people, which in this specific case works well with the caste system. The leaders are supposed to bring benefits to their house which will in turn help their warriors, nobles, and merchants.[/quote]

Except it doesn't, which is why merchants are the ones who side with Bhelen. 
You assume that noble hosues represent the other castes they act as patrons to when that is not the case. The relationship is co-dependent and the lesser castes have no legal or legitimate means to claim that the noble houses have to represent their interests. 

Evidence: HArrowmont in power means less trade. So your argument is moot and irrelevent. 

[quote]
To say they are ineffective in times of crisis is more than unfair on the basis that they were nowhere near their best. [/quote]

They perpatuate an idioitic system that is driving them to the ground. That is the only argument I need to show its innefficiency. 

But I'll give you more examples. Harrowmont with his golems means more caste retrisctions, less trade and casteless getting massacred. Why? Because Harrowmont did exactly what his Assembly friends want him to. 

[quote] 
"Bhelen is not operating in 'normal' circumstances." You're right, if you take away the infighting he's operating in the BEST circumstances. During a blight the deep roads are at their quietest, plus all foreign threats are at war with the spawn (or in this case themselves AND the spawn). [/quote]

Except I was talking about Bhelen post-blight in response to you talking about Bhelen in the epilogue (which is post-blight), so your argument is once again moot. 

[quote]
After the blight, the darkspawn go back but at a much more weakened state. That, and the fact that your actions not only in this game but in the expansion can weaken/ quiet them even further makes it even easier to fight off the darkspawn to the point where they aren't even the biggest issue to worry about. [/quote]

Oh really? Because you think the Warden in killing one broodmother can reverse centuries of losses? The Legion of the Dead was the only force that defended Orzammar and they were losing. They lost their citadel and they have no means or manpower to take it back and hold it. 

Such arrogance to think your wArden can, in a few days, reverse the tide of a centuries' old conflict. The darkspawn even without a blight are still a mortal threat to the dwarves, as actual warriors and Legionnaires tell you. I'll base my actions on their words, and not yours thank you very much. 

[quote]
Finally, I have to say that you are INCREDIBLY naive if you think Bhelen would so much as consider restoring the assembly for any reason, not because it's a bad idea or system but because there is no personal gain in it.[/quote]

Yea tell that to Augustus. Of course there can be personal gain to it, if he does it correctly. 


[quote]
Putting aside that he's a manipulative,[/quote]

In other words a good politician in a political system that is mired in deception and manipulation. 

[quote]
Still, I understand where you're coming from, but I think of it like this: would you rather choose a government where Hitler is in charge, but your nation is guaranteed to live (what's left of it), or would you rather have a government where there is still potential to stop a tyranny at the potential risk of disaster. Personally, I would prefer the latter.[/quote]

Yea here we go with the godwin, generally used by the uneducated. 

Hitler was incompetent (he was good at taking power only) and most of his policies inefficient, in addition to being obsessed with an irrational and stupid ideology. Bhelen has no such flaws, so compeltely flawed analogy. 

Oh wait, let's see. An ideology that believes a group of people is lesser, that shoudl be boycotted, or even massacred if need be. Hmmm, what kind of system Harrowmont supports again? What does he do with golems again? 

[quote]
The dwarves didn't seem so preoccupied or worried with the blight upon our visit, even though it was a blight, but even when they mention it in times there isn't a blight they don't seem so concerned with it at that time either. And as you've stated, they've been existing for centuries. That's centuries the assembly has been working, and as it turns out the dwarves are still alive.[/quote]

Clearly not paying attention. They don't care if it's a surface blight, because it doens't concern them as darkspawn start to move to the surface. Between blights, they are always threatened.

You want evidence? The Legion of the Dead was losing ground. They lost their main forteress. Orzammar was getting weaker. Praising the Assembly for perpetuating a system that is ensuring a slow death is nothing short than stupid. 

[quote]
It is genius and it does help him accomplish his goals, but it is so out of his character that I have to question how well thought through this particular part of the story was written.This is the same man that attacked the assembly simply because he didn't get what he wanted. This doesn't inspire one to think of him as a rational character or even a strategist, and he doesn't seem like a sympathizer to the downtrodden either.[/quote]

Because people are such easy beings to categorize. One can't possibly be personally ambitious and actually care for the commonwealth of the majority of his people.

One moment of anger does not undo a man whose other polocies are completely rational.  

[quote]
The civil war you speak of is more of a small scale rebellion that Bhelen sympathizers start. It isn't as massive as a "civil war" at any scale. [/quote]

Wrong. Harrowmont without golems is assassinated and once again Orzammar finds itself without king and in a crisis. In other words, fail. 

[quote]
The same can be said of Bhelen, except the rebelling faction is house Harrowmont.[/quote]

Except he wins, and Harrowmont loses. 
With golems, Harrowmont wins and makes things worse. Bravo to you. 

[quote]
 a good story should have disadvantages to choosing either side to make it a bit more interesting[/quote]

I couldn't care less what you think "should" be, these are the facts now. Either base your arguments on them, or don't argue. 

At the end of the day, you're picking a guy who can't be supported either ethically seeing what he does and what system he supports, or logically. 

[quote]
Overall I say you're the blind one as you bring a lot of bias against the assembly and ignore the fact that they have been fighting for a very, VERY long time against the darkspawn and still manage to live today. [/quote]

Yes, the Legion losing its fortress. Orzammar facing a man shortage and still banning the castless from the military and even work. Them discriminating and abusing the one people who are keeping Orzammar alive (surfacer traders)...etc.
The Assembly is doing so well.

Especially when they have free rein to do what they want, when the idiot Harrowmont has enough power to show his true colors. A regressive incompetent idiot who uses golems to massacre his own people (except he doens't think casteless are people),  and make the caste system even worse.

I applaud you. Your misguided and empty ideals are surely worth more than the survival and growth of an entire nation. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 février 2013 - 02:52 .

[TEWR]

And that was a very good move. That Harrowmont surviver was goign to Kal-Shirok, which hates Orzammar. Letting him go there can spell disaster. Eliminating him was the good move.

True, though I'm led to believe Bhelen himself would try and make Kal-Sharok have better relations with Orzammar. Part of why Kal-Sharok despises Orzammar is because the latter was so mired in tradition.

They might just kill Harrowmont's surviving relative. 

Personally, however, was it truly necessary to kill the entire family? Harrowmont can arguably be considered such (I'm not certain whether I'd advocate it or not, given how he does accept Bhelen's authority) but not everyone within the Harrowmont clan was supporting him. Some were even on Bhelen's side, either through intimidation or deception or whatever.

The dwarves didn't seem so preoccupied or worried with the blight upon our visit, even though it was a blight, but even when they mention it in times there isn't a blight they don't seem so concerned with it at that time either. And as you've stated, they've been existing for centuries. That's centuries the assembly has been working, and as it turns out the dwarves are still alive.

Hah! What a laugh. The First Blight alone had the entire Dwarven Empire reduced to a mediocre pittance to what it used to be. It became a shadow of its self. Four cities managed to hold off the Darkspawn, but at the cost of isolating themselves from each other.

The infighting amongst the nobles of Orzammar caused many thaigs to be lost to the Darkspawn because each noble thought their property was more important then their neighbor's. This fractured empire became even more fractured due to the Assembly, where the nobility control parts of the entire Dwarven army.

A couple centuries after the First Blight, Hormak and Gundaar -- two of the four cities -- were lost to the Darkspawn, prompting Orzammar to destroy access to Kal-Sharok to preserve themselves.

Even so, Stalata Negat details how the Dwarves have been losing ground over the course of all the Ages. Kardol's comments and the comments of other Dwarves talk about how the Darkspawn are a never-ending Blight, a nightmare that lasts forever.

Blights are their only reprieve, because then they can attempt to gain land. But the nobles are so mired in tradition and infighting that any ground they do reclaim is minimal at best. King Eithnar Bemot declared that in times of war -- which is exactly what the Dwarves are in all the damn time now -- the army of Orzammar would be at the control of the King.

The Assembly is something that must go. Only a fool would believe that tradition matters more then unity.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 26 février 2013 - 03:17 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ethereal.
I see Bhelen wiping out House Harrowmont in the same vein of Tywin Lannister wiping out the Reynes of Castamere. Was it really necessary? Maybe not. But what it does is set a clear message. Essentially 'don't **** with me.' As you know, power is ultimately an image.

I say the benefits make the costs acceptable.

[TEWR]

Fair point. It was sort of Tywin-esque.

Though on a slightly related note, Bhelen never struck me as the type of person that could make enemies his friends, which is a key part of preserving your image of power if you ask me. Lord Tywin struck me as that. Not that you claimed he is Lord Tywin, mind you. Just rambling right now.

That's part of why I view Bhelen as a hack, though better then Harrowmont. I view some of his actions as asinine, like how his first inclination when Branka refused to make Golems at his pleasure was to launch a full scale assault against her.

One could say this contradicts how he was presented in-game as a man that studied history. King Valtor wasn't too different when Caridin didn't want to make Golems at his pleasure.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Well of course Bhelen doesn't come close to Tywin as far as the art of politicking go. Add to that, that' it's Bioware we're talking about. They couldn't write a Tywin if their lives depended on it.

Still, Bhelen is bound to create more enemies than Tywin by virtue of him reforming the system. I'm going to quote Deus Ex here. "If you want enemies, try to change something." Bhelen is trying to change the very traditions of Orzammar. So he's axiomatically going to have more enemies than a man who is not really a visonnary in the strictest sense of the term.

And while yes I do see the ability of turning enemies into allies as a vital skill, I believe that if Bhelen's reforms succeed, it's not really a necessary one. If the merchants, warriors and castless support him en masse (thus stripping the nobility of their powerbase), then he does not really need the nobles who can be cowed into submission or eradicated if need be.

As for Branka. I would have dealt with her violently for sure, I would not keep such a vital and dangerous military tool in the hands of someone as unstable as her. But I would have tried to assassinate her rather than openly attack her unless I'm out of options. We don't know the details of that though so.

I don't think Bhelen is a brilliant statesman (like I said, Bioware can't write one even they wanted to). He's not in the same level as Tywin Lannister, or Radovid V, let alone historical figures, as far as pure political skill is concerned. But of all all Bioware games that I know of, he was the best written one and the most impressive (while Master Li is a magnificent bastard, we don't really know what he's like as a statesman).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 février 2013 - 04:24 .

[TEWR]

As for Branka. I would have dealt with her violently for sure, I would not keep such a vital and dangerous military tool in the hands of someone as unstable as her. But I would have tried to assassinate her rather than openly attack her unless I'm out of options. We don't know the details of that though so.

I feel that diplomacy should've been the first method to be tried, then when that failed -- as even I see it as a long shot, but I feel it's the better method -- to then work on removing her from there. Indeed, poison or some other assassination method would've been better then a full scale assault.

But had diplomacy worked with her, I wouldn't have left it at "Well, she listened to me, time to move on". I would've continued in the hope that I might be able to convince her to go elsewhere and let someone else take over. It's a long shot, but I feel diplomacy should be first, assassination if that fails, and then as you say open assault.

At any rate, I agree that Branka should not be in control of the Anvil long term. She can be in control of it only so long as necessity dictates and until she jots down further information on the process, as Caridin's notes and journal only tell some of the core essentials of the process. 

Still, Bhelen is bound to create more enemies than Tywin by virtue of him reforming the system. I'm going to quote Deus Ex here. "If you want enemies, try to change something." Bhelen is trying to change the very traditions of Orzammar. So he's axiomatically going to have more enemies than a man who is not really a visonnary in the strictest sense of the term. 

This is good to know for my original story writing, as one of my main characters is a visionary. Is it true, however, for all visionaries? 

And while yes I do see the ability of turning enemies into allies as a vital skill, I believe that if Bhelen's reforms succeed, it's not really a necessary one. If the merchants, warriors and castless support him en masse (thus stripping the nobility of their powerbase), then he does not really need the nobles who can be cowed into submission or eradicated if need be.

 

Essentially pulling a Paragon Aeducan, eh? Seems to work well enough. Popular support can be particular support, if circumstances are correctly met. 

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 26 février 2013 - 04:53 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

This is good to know for my original story writing, as one of my main characters is a visionary. Is it true, however, for all visionaries? 

I believe so, but with different scales depending on the issue at play. 

No system can survive if there are no benefits to those influencial enough to preserve it. Any change is bound to alter the balance of power and the dynamic at play to a certain degree. So there will always be those who resist said changes one way or the other. This is amplified when it comes to policies backed or justified by culture, norms or religion. 

Depending on circumstances and skill, such resistance can be brought to a minimum. For instance, Augustus' reform of the system had very little significant opposition (some plots were discovered here and there but they were minor). That's due to a number of factors, including most of potential oppenents being wiped out in proscriptions earlier, vast popular support (who were angry he didn't declare himself dictator for life), no desire for more civil war after 2 devastating ones, unshakable loyalty of the troops...etc etc.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 février 2013 - 05:06 .

[TEWR]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I believe so, but with different scales depending on the issue at play. 

No system can survive if there are no benefits to those influencial enough to preserve it. Any change is bound to alter the balance of power and the dynamic at play to a certain degree. So there will always be those who resist said changes one way or the other. This is amplified when it comes to policies backed or justified by culture, norms or religion. 

Depending on circumstances and skill, such resistance can be brought to a minimum. For instance, Augustus' reform of the system had very little significant opposition (some plots were discovered here and there but they were minor). That's due to a number of factors, including most of potential oppenents being wiped out in proscriptions earlier, vast popular support (who were angry he didn't declare himself dictator for life), no desire for more civil war after 2 devastating ones, unshakable loyalty of the troops...etc etc.  

Part of me is laughing a bit, for one reason: My character is Augustus, essentially. A few things will not be the same -- it won't be so easy for him -- but some things will be similar. You'd definitely like this character, assuming I can nail my intentions for him. It's funny to read what you wrote and go "Now that sounds familiar." because of what I've written so far.

Thanks for this, KoP. 

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 26 février 2013 - 05:40 .