19 réponses à ce sujet

[Mykel54]

Just as the title reads. I´m wondering because it seems like the current viscount son was expected to succeed his father. In history, even in positions that were not hereditary, the natural son usually had a good chance of getting the office of his father, better than a complete stranger.

Starkhaven was clearly ruled by a prince (so it is a principality) and it is hereditary. Meanwhile Kirkwall is ruled by a Viscount, so perhaps it is a viscounty. I looked at the wiki at saw this: "Thus early viscounts were originally normally given their titles by the
monarch, not hereditary; but soon they too tended to establish
hereditary principalities lato sensu (in the wider sense)."

To me it seems like the position is in fact hereditary, so when Perrin Threnhold was killed by the templars, the office passed to other member of the nobility instead of one of his descendants out of spite, for trying to expel the templars. If he had died of say, natural causes, then the office might have stayed on his family.

What do you think, is the viscount office hereditary or not?

[thats1evildude]

The title of viscount is merely a holdover from the Orlesian occupation of Kirkwall. The viscount is, for all intents and purposes, the king of Kirkwall.

Seamus would likely have been viscount after his father had the city not gone to hell.

[Reno_Tarshil]

I supported the templars so I would have made king..

[TEWR]

Yes, a Viscount is the ruler of the city, or at least should be were the Templars not the ones pulling the strings. So, the child of a Viscount would assume that position were the Viscount to die. Saemus would've been Viscount had he not:

A) become Qunari
not been killed.

Now, had the Qunari won and Saemus was still alive, they would've probably installed Saemus as the person in charge of the city since the Arishok says that Saemus' connection to the Viscount may have to have been used if it came to that.

Long and short of it is this: the child of a Viscount assumes that position if the current Viscount dies.

[KJandrew]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Now, had the Qunari won and Saemus was still alive, they would've probably installed Saemus as the person in charge of the city since the Arishok says that Saemus' connection to the Viscount may have to have been used if it came to that.

I thought the Arishok said the exact opposite to that? I was under the impression he said that Saemus' blood meant nothing and that he would be treated the same as any other follower of the Qun and assigned the role best for him.

[Huntress]

KJandrew wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Now, had the Qunari won and Saemus was still alive, they would've probably installed Saemus as the person in charge of the city since the Arishok says that Saemus' connection to the Viscount may have to have been used if it came to that.

I thought the Arishok said the exact opposite to that? I was under the impression he said that Saemus' blood meant nothing and that he would be treated the same as any other follower of the Qun and assigned the role best for him.

yes because everyone say what they have in mind? IF the viscount died, Saemus would have taken power and the qunari would have had a foot hold in the free marches. The chantry was going to be destroyed either way.. rofl.

[TEWR]

KJandrew wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Now, had the Qunari won and Saemus was still alive, they would've probably installed Saemus as the person in charge of the city since the Arishok says that Saemus' connection to the Viscount may have to have been used if it came to that.

I thought the Arishok said the exact opposite to that? I was under the impression he said that Saemus' blood meant nothing and that he would be treated the same as any other follower of the Qun and assigned the role best for him.

He said he didn't accept him because of his relation to the Viscount, but that the Qun may demand that his relation to the Viscount be used.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 octobre 2011 - 06:34 .

[Wulfram]

Appointing as ruler someone so obviously unsuited to the role seems rather un-Qunari.

[TEWR]

If Kirkwall became a Qunari city-state, Saemus would be suited for the role. He's Qunari and the city would be also, so really it's just a matter of following Qunari doctrine.

edit: bah, my grammar is really off today

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 18 octobre 2011 - 06:40 .

[Anvos]

Huntress wrote...

KJandrew wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Now, had the Qunari won and Saemus was still alive, they would've probably installed Saemus as the person in charge of the city since the Arishok says that Saemus' connection to the Viscount may have to have been used if it came to that.

I thought the Arishok said the exact opposite to that? I was under the impression he said that Saemus' blood meant nothing and that he would be treated the same as any other follower of the Qun and assigned the role best for him.

yes because everyone say what they have in mind? IF the viscount died, Saemus would have taken power and the qunari would have had a foot hold in the free marches. The chantry was going to be destroyed either way.. rofl.

I'm fairly sure Merideth and the other nobles would have given the viscount's son a vote of no confidence, meaning if he tried to take the throne it would end similar to how the viscount before his father left office.

[bigSarg]

I kind of have to agree with the norm here, had things worked out differently and the Quanari gained control of the city, they would have probably put Seamus on the throne (if he would have lived), but I'm not all that sure if the throne is hereditary, there really isn't any hard facts that can support the hereditary view (not saying its wrong) depending on how you interpret the various dialogue concerning the viscount and his son and the dialogue between Hawke and the Arishok. If Seamus would not have died and the the viscount was still killed, I believe that Meredith would still have taken control of the city regardless of Seamus or what the nobles wanted, mainly because of his ties to the Quanari. I am surprised that Hawke was not named Viscount after Act 2, I don't think it would have made much difference to the storyline, I think the end battle would have been the same.

[Wulfram]

Bran makes it pretty clear that the throne is hereditary unless the line is judged unfit or ends. Though Meredith would certainly have had grounds to declare Saemus unfit.

[TEWR]

Meredith would've called anyone unfit to rule. She wasn't exactly sane.

[ThePhoenixKing]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Meredith would've called anyone unfit to rule. She wasn't exactly sane.

Indeed. In her eyes, any solitary flaw would be enough to disqualify a potential candidate, and even if there was a spotless claimant, she could always pull the "they could be mind-controlled by a blood mage" card and reject him or her that way.

For those of you who don't know, you can talk to Senschal Bran in Act III and he'll explain things to you, but to put it simply; the title of Viscount is passed down in a hereditary fashion, much in the same manner as kingship in Fereldan, but should a line end, then the city's nobility will determine the new Viscount from amongst their number, and they have to achieve a consensus in doing so (it's not based by popular vote or whoever has the most support, everyone has to agree on the new Viscount for them to be appointed).

[IanPolaris]

As I undestand it the Viscount of Kirkwall is psuedo-hereditory much like the Holy Roman Emperor's were in our real history. That is to say that the overriding assumption is that the eldest son of the Current Viscount (or HRE in our history) would take the title, but that would have to be confirmed by a vote (usually a token vote) by the nobility first [or by a select vote of 'Electors' who were high ranking nobles for the historical Holy Roman Emperor].  The Dwarves of Orzammar seem to have similiar traditions. It only gets interesting when there is no direct heir.....

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 01 novembre 2011 - 06:12 .

[Patchwork]

bigSarg wrote...

I kind of have to agree with the norm here, had things worked out differently and the Quanari gained control of the city, they would have probably put Seamus on the throne (if he would have lived), but I'm not all that sure if the throne is hereditary, there really isn't any hard facts that can support the hereditary view (not saying its wrong) depending on how you interpret the various dialogue concerning the viscount and his son and the dialogue between Hawke and the Arishok. If Seamus would not have died and the the viscount was still killed, I believe that Meredith would still have taken control of the city regardless of Seamus or what the nobles wanted, mainly because of his ties to the Quanari. I am surprised that Hawke was not named Viscount after Act 2, I don't think it would have made much difference to the storyline, I think the end battle would have been the same.

I would have liked that if only because it would have been interesting and would have made Hawke's stroy a real rise to power. But as mage!Hawke couldn't be named Viscount, especially with the templars being the ultimate power in Kirkwall, it's probably best BW didn't go that way. Being a mage was ignored enough in game without throwing that one in.
It would have been great to have a questline in Act 3 which did involve finding a new Viscount though, Whether the candidate is Hawke or not and trying to oust Meredith. Or work with Bran on the social and political stuff in the Viscount's office that Meredith would see as pointless. 

[Wereparrot]

I think I remember reading somewhere that the viscountship is a hereditary position but in the event of there not being an heir then a new viscount was elected from the nobility.

[Sylvianus]

In any case, the viscount has no power, he is only a puppet in the hands of the Templars. They let him govern "(not rule) if he is not a problem at their own will. We have the answer from the beginning, when the guards of Kirkwall must meet the Knight Captain Meredith's orders. The guard even wondered what would happen to the Viscount if he violated the orders of Meredith.

What is interesting, whether hereditary or not, is that no one can become the viscount without the agreement of the templars.

So if Seamus could in theory receive the title of viscount, someone else could be totally chosen  " legitimately " with the help of the Templars if they wished it. The practice of power is completely different.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 01 novembre 2011 - 03:20 .

[Bayz]

I'd say it is elected by a truly democratic system where the Knight Commander, democratically finger chooses who will be the democratic sucessor, all for the good of democratic democracy.

She will choose which one is and if the current viscount says know then she will choose to have her templars storming his\\her house and kill all his\\family all completely democratic as you can see.

[AlexXIV]

Viscount is a nobility title, so guess they are inherited. Or replaced, like the guy before the current Viscount.