249 réponses à ce sujet

[Apophis2412]

Tirigon wrote...




1. A civil war isnt necessarily bad. Its a stupid comparison, but a civil war against Hitler or Stalin would have been good for everybody, for example.

2. It doesnt matter if you are as bad as them, why should you not have the possibility to win the game as the cruel Emperor? In Jade Empire, for example, you could kill Li and take his place as divine Emperor.

3. If you want to be a good ruler, you wont let you stop by a few nobles who disagree. A peaceful coronation would be best, but it´s better if you win the war and, then, lead Ferelden to a Golden Age (like Aragorn did in LotR, for example) than if you don´t rule at all.

4. It might not be exactly your armies, but (telling the 3rd time now) Libertarians or elves could join you for their own interests, the Golems ARE of course yours, since you have their control rods and so forth.

5. To the werewolves: Ok, you couldnt ally with them officially. But you dont need to. You can just make a secret deal with them, like: You protect them, and in return they do only hunt and kill your enemies, rather than everyone.
Good for them, cause they survive, and good for you, cause you have someone to do the dirty work, who cant be tracked to you easily.

6. If all else fails, you could just visit Antiva with Zevran, take a holiday, meet the Crows and make an arrangement so that your noble opponents have had tragic accidents once you come back.

1. A Civil War is bad. A Revolution is not.
3.  True. But perhaps there is a good reason that these nobles disagree with you?
And who determines that you are a good ruler?

2. , 4 and 5. In Jade Empire you had the power of a god at your disposal. All you have in DAO is a dog and perhaps your love interest. Not even Bhelen or Fergus would be foolish enough to wage a war, just to put you on the throne.  The Golems wil not join you, because Branka/ Bhelen controls them not you. The aid of the Libertarians and/or Blood Mages will just get you the Chantry (and thus most of Thedas) as an enemy.

And who thought that the werewolves were a good idea? Enslaving people againast their will is bad. (This happened with some of the Dalish). And who would want undisicplined soldiers who are not even bright enough to walk in formation?
And let's forget the affect this will have on your publice image.

[DeathWyrmNexus]

This would be a Coronation fail... You weren't married to the king, ergo you cannot be queen. Alistair did not live to be king and you were never married. Screwing doesn't make a marriage.



Let Nelson Muntz know that he is on in five... four... three... two... one...



HA... ha...!

[Nashimura]

I was going to try this myself, im glad you saved me the trouble.

[April Rayne]

All wisdom and learning comes from the Princess Bride!

[Pimpmyvanagon]

Apophis2412 wrote...

I find it strange that people sya htey have a claim to the throne because they are a Cousland and their father is a Teryn. But they forget that Loghain was also a Teryn. The Mac Tir's might be just as powerful as the Couslands for all we know.

You've got it backwards. People are saying Anora has a claim to the throne, and we are trying to figure out what about Anora's situation is different from that of a human noble female Warden. What causes the Warden to be named princess-consort (that is, not able to hold the throne in her own right if Alistair dies), when Anora apparently was made queen and so could legitimately claim the throne after Cailan's death? And as you've pointed out, the answer is "pretty much nothing". Both were Ferelden nobility of the same station at the time they married - first in line of succession to the title of Teyrna (Anora will inherit Gwaren from Loghain, while your character will inherit Highever from Fergus). Both marry a king of the Theirin bloodline shortly after his coronation. Both kings were generally thought of as being fairly weak and easily controlled. What was so special about Anora?

Mesecina wrote...

However on topic: it's pretty damn logical you can't be Queen
because putting engagement to Alistair aside since he's kinda dead in
your scenario and even assuming you still had Cousland privileges
Anora's claim to the throne would be higher and she never gave up her
rights and even Alistair says "keep her around in case I don't survive
the battle then we'll find a warm and fuzzy tower for her" (well
something like that), so tehcnically until Alistair returns from the
battle Anora is still Queen.

First, what exactly is Anora's claim to the throne? See above for further thoughts on that.

Second, this is only an issue because we were forced to keep Anora alive due to lack of dialogue choice, in spite of the fact that it was totally insane to do so. I can't think of a worse idea than telling someone with Anora's demonstrated ambition and lack of scruples, "We're kicking you off the throne now... but you can have it back if some unfortunate accident were to kill Alistair before his coronation. Now he's off to the big battle, where he'll be fighting alongside soldiers who have sworn oaths of loyalty to Gwaren and the Mac Tir family. Hopefully nobody acidentally slips and puts a dagger in his back. Anyway, have fun in jail, don't drop the soap!"

Evainelithe wrote...

Sorry if this has been mentioned
before, I haven't read all eight pages yet. But why is Anora Queen
while you get to be Princess-consort after marrying the King. Anora is
a Teyrn's daughter yet by most considered a commoner  where you are a
Teyrn's daughter of an old noble line. Yet she is queen after marrying
the king and you're princess-consort? How does that work
exactly?

This has been mentioned before, but it bears repeating because it is a very good question. As near as I can tell, the answer is "because the plot demands", but I would be interested to hear if there is a reason I've missed.

[Tirigon]

Korva wrote...

@Tirigon: In all honesty, the more you type, the more I fail to see any reason why your character would in fact NOT be as bad or worse as Loghain or Anora.

Thats sad for you, then. But its not my problem. All I see is that YOU dont even try to underline your opinion with arguments.

Apophis wrote:
1. A Civil War is bad. A Revolution is not.

A revolution can easily lead to a civil war.  And besides, even a civil war can have its good points.  The american Civil War freed the slaves, for example.

3.  True. But perhaps there is a good reason that these nobles disagree with you?

Maybe they have a reason that seems good to them, but it doesnt seem good to me.

And who determines that you are a good ruler?

We´re talking about an Singleplayer-RPG, so obviously me.

2.
, 4 and 5. In Jade Empire you had the power of a god at your disposal.
All you have in DAO is a dog and perhaps your love interest. Not even
Bhelen or Fergus would be foolish enough to wage a war, just to put you
on the throne.  The Golems wil not join you, because Branka/ Bhelen
controls them not you. The aid of the Libertarians and/or Blood Mages
will just get you the Chantry (and thus most of Thedas) as an enemy.

Bhelen is a Dictator himself, so why should he not join me? The golems are mine, and if Branka doesnt hand them to me I can simply get rid of her. I dont fear the chantry if I can have Blood Mages.

And
who thought that the werewolves were a good idea? Enslaving people
againast their will is bad. (This happened with some of the Dalish).
And who would want undisicplined soldiers who are not even bright
enough to walk in formation?
And let's forget the affect this will have on your publice image.

I thought I made it clear that I do not want to enslave anybody, as well as that I do not intend to officially ally with them. It would rather be a mutual agreement nnot to hunt them down as long as they dont kill my people but only the enemy. And I dont care that they have no formation. If the enemy is dead, it doesnt matter if my soldiers walked in formation or not.
Besides, nice of you not to disagree with my last point at least:)

[Korva]

Tirigon wrote...

Thats sad for you, then. But its not my problem. All I see is that YOU dont even try to underline your opinion with arguments.

Others have already stated many of the same arguments I would. Repeatedly. I honestly don't mean any insult, I just don't think we can agree in this matter. You seem totally convinced your character could and should easily take power. I on the other hand think that a Grey Warden who is also an apostate and maleficar and willing to turn golems, werewolves, assassins and (blood) mages loose on his own people to prolong a civil war for the sole purpose of seizing power for himself could never 1) succeed , 2) get away with it in the eyes of his neighbours, and 3) optionally still be considered a good guy on higher moral ground than Loghain or Anora or the Orlesians. (Apologies if any of these don't apply to your specific case, but all have been mentioned in this thread.)

If there is one thing the game is woefully short of (beside engaging NPC interaction) it is consequences for our actions, something many players don't consider. You could not go utterly against established law, custom and belief and expect all would be fine. You would not have any support from any established parties. Even if you succeed, it would not be without more devastation and decimation, the result would be a bloody tyranny over a small, cowed populace -- and most of Thedas would be fighting to be the first in line to kick you right off that throne again. Ferelden-as-Ferelden, the society, would cease to exist.

Your character is not the only powerful, influential and intelligent person in the world. There are many, many others and their resources are far greater than that of small, isolated, war-torn Ferelden. If you say "I don't fear them" ... I think that is the first step to a quick death.

As for who would help (or not) in a civil war:

The Dalish? If you have werewolves, you butchered an entire clan. So you won't have that clan, and word will get around to the others. They will not be pleased to say the least. Even if you don't have werewolves, I doubt the Dalish would get involved. Humans fight human wars for human reasons and human things. The keeper from the origin says the Dalish stay out of such affairs. Besides, if they see a shem who is willing to wage war on his own people with some rather horrible methods, it is likely at least some of them would wonder when, not if, these methods would be turned against them, as well, as humans have always done. And the human populace would harbor even more suspicion and hate for the Dalish if they helped put a tyrant on the throne. The elves would suffer for that, likely sooner rather than later.

Dwarves? They are still recovering from a civil war of their own. They don't care much for topsiders. They are a dying breed who don't have the warriors to spare for anything that isn't of crucial importance. They are constantly under pressure by the darkspawn, which will only get worse once the horde breaks and runs back into the Deep Roads.

Golems? Branka is the key here. She doesn't even care about dwarven politics, much less topsiders. She wants the darkspawn wiped out. Also, making golems is by definition NOT a good act, especially once it gets to the "throw everyone on the anvil whom I don't like and raid for slaves from the surface" stage. If you kill her for not complying, congrats, no more golems. It will take time before another exceptional master smith learns how to make golems, and even more importantly: control rods. (Even Caridin's apprentices couldn't figure that out.)

Mages? Most of the ones who would rebel are likely very much dead already after the Broken Circle quest.

[Tirigon]

Korva wrote...

Others have already stated many of the same arguments I would. Repeatedly. I honestly don't mean any insult, I just don't think we can agree in this matter. You seem totally convinced your character could and should easily take power. I on the other hand think that a Grey Warden who is also an apostate and maleficar and willing to turn golems, werewolves, assassins and (blood) mages loose on his own people to prolong a civil war for the sole purpose of seizing power for himself could never 1) succeed , 2) get away with it in the eyes of his neighbours, and 3) optionally still be considered a good guy on higher moral ground than Loghain or Anora or the Orlesians. (Apologies if any of these don't apply to your specific case, but all have been mentioned in this thread.)

I never spoke on turning on my own people, I rather see it as freeing them from the chantry´s and the noble´s tyranny (Did you play the City Elf origin? Then you know what I mean).  Then, Blood magic is not as such bad. Duncan thinks the chantry´s laws are too strict, and even Alistair!!! wants you to use blood magic if you have killed Connor in the Redcliff quest.

If there is one thing the game is woefully short of (beside engaging NPC interaction) it is consequences for our actions, something many players don't consider. You could not go utterly against established law, custom and belief and expect all would be fine. You would not have any support from any established parties. Even if you succeed, it would not be without more devastation and decimation, the result would be a bloody tyranny over a small, cowed populace -- and most of Thedas would be fighting to be the first in line to kick you right off that throne again. Ferelden-as-Ferelden, the society, would cease to exist.

As an anarchist, I wouldnt mind destroying the feudal system in Ferelden and substitute it by another, better system. Actually, thats why I want to become King. And considering how much the nobles fight between each other, I doubt they will unite against you. You would more probably even have some on your side.

Your character is not the only powerful, influential and intelligent person in the world. There are many, many others and their resources are far greater than that of small, isolated, war-torn Ferelden. If you say "I don't fear them" ... I think that is the first step to a quick death.

Maybe not the only powerful one, but definitely the most powerful one. And definitely the only one with knowledge of forgotten powers such as the arcane warrior style.

As for who would help (or not) in a civil war:
The Dalish? If you have werewolves, you butchered an entire clan. So you won't have that clan, and word will get around to the others. They will not be pleased to say the least. Even if you don't have werewolves, I doubt the Dalish would get involved. Humans fight human wars for human reasons and human things. The keeper from the origin says the Dalish stay out of such affairs. Besides, if they see a shem who is willing to wage war on his own people with some rather horrible methods, it is likely at least some of them would wonder when, not if, these methods would be turned against them, as well, as humans have always done. And the human populace would harbor even more suspicion and hate for the Dalish if they helped put a tyrant on the throne. The elves would suffer for that, likely sooner rather than later.

If you have werewolves, you can make sure noone survives to tell about your part in this clan getting destroyed. If you dont have them, you spread the word how you helped the Dalish and will be trustworthy to them.  And they dont always stay out. Shartan helped Andraste and got rewarded. Now, someone should help me, and get rewarded.  And why are the methods I proposed horribly? Killing the leaders asap and use Golems or magic in the fight instead of risking the lifes of your warriors and slaying army after army of people who were probably forced to fight for their lord is the way to lead a war in which the common people suffer as less as possible.

Dwarves? They are still recovering from a civil war of their own. They don't care much for topsiders. They are a dying breed who don't have the warriors to spare for anything that isn't of crucial importance. They are constantly under pressure by the darkspawn, which will only get worse once the horde breaks and runs back into the Deep Roads.

Ok, you might be right about that. It was just my impression that Bhelen is enough of an arseh0le to fight for you if you pay him, but I always considered the dwarfs as the ones you shouldnt count on too much. However, they have some reasons too: after all, I gave them their living wall, the golems,  back. I guess they can lend me a few fighters in return - or at least Lyrium for my mages and fine dwarfish stuff for the warriors.

Golems? Branka is the key here. She doesn't even care about dwarven politics, much less topsiders. She wants the darkspawn wiped out. Also, making golems is by definition NOT a good act, especially once it gets to the "throw everyone on the anvil whom I don't like and raid for slaves from the surface" stage. If you kill her for not complying, congrats, no more golems. It will take time before another exceptional master smith learns how to make golems, and even more importantly: control rods. (Even Caridin's apprentices couldn't figure that out.)

You do already have some of them, and you might get more if you´re nice. But even if not - you dont need them too much. Would be nice help, but it´s not essential. And of course I would NEVER force someone to become a golem if he doesnt volunteer (in the literal meaning, not the military^^). For one thing because its a cruel thing to do, and second because I would never make my enemies to nearly unkillable fighting.machines.

Mages? Most of the ones who would rebel are likely very much dead already after the Broken Circle quest.

But not all. If you read the codexes about bloodmages, I daresay that one of them (protected by warriors, so templars cant kill him too easily) is enough to decide a battle for your side. Or he could simply overtake the enemie´s leader and force him to change sides to you. After all, that´s why they are feared so much. Give your enemies reason to fear them for it!

[Malsumis]

Korva wrote...

@Tirigon: In all honesty, the more you type, the more I fail to see any reason why your character would in fact NOT be as bad or worse as Loghain or Anora.

Just look back to the Dwarven choice. Good/Bad person does not = Good/Bad Monarch. Personally I think Anora would be a better Monarch then Alistiar.

[Baalzie]

David Gaider wrote...

Taleroth wrote...
You weren't queen.  You weren't married yet.  When did the ceremony occur?  You were going to be queen.  But that was contingent upon the Alistair surviving to marry you.  You can't off the groom before the wedding and still expect to get married.

Being engaged doesn't make you Queen.  Especially considering that even that isn't formalized until after the Archdemon fight.

This.

I'm sure Anora appreciates the OP's enthusiasm in killing Alistair before the wedding, however (and before Alistair could even actually assume the throne).

To all brawlers in this thread, read David Gaiders own words please! The author! The author is always right!^^
THIS! 
YOU WERE NOT MARRIED!
And engaged brides to be has no rights of succession at all, even though their bastard children would! 
Again according to the authors...
*If You let Morrigan do the naughty with Allistair her babe is now rightful heir to Fereldens throne and You are not even last in line*
And the Queen WAS married to the King, note her title: QUEEN! So she kinda already HAS the throne...
You never got married no matter what Alistair calls You, the King is not above the law, the Landsmeet decides the ruler when succession is in doubt... *Which is why a Landsmeet was called to try and make Alistair king doh!*
Only the wanting to have Calenhad bloodline on the throne make anyone at all wanting Alistair as king.

[Maria Caliban]

Skellimancer wrote...

Rishavs wrote...

And how do you rule a feudal land without nobles?
there were no telegraphs or mass transits. power had to be decentralized. Nobles were essential for all early civilizations which were spread over a large area.

I will create clones.

Baalzie wrote...

The author is always right!^^

No.

I recall the time someone was quoting BG 2 to David and he's like "It sounds familiar..."

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 16 décembre 2009 - 03:43 .

[Wompoo]

I will agree with the OP on one point... after such a long game that does come with a certain amount of emotional investment in your character, the endings mostly fail. Visually and in some origins they just feel like someone stuck a rusty spoon in your chest and twisted it. This is a game unfortunately, who's endings I really do not look forward to. Game endings are a major fail from most development houses if not every single one... but for an rpg bad endings are even more noticeable.

[Pimpmyvanagon]

Baalzie wrote...

And the Queen WAS married to the King, note her title: QUEEN! So she kinda already HAS the throne...

Please do read the thread first.

[Tulicus]

I dont care if my female noble has a right to claim the thron, i claim it. It was planed thad Alister becomes King and me Queen. If Alister dies i will become queen without him. Anora (to bad there is no dialogoption for killing her) has to stepp aside or i step over her dead body and the body everyone arls who stand betwen me an the thrown. My charakter is a evel Femal noble with the will to rule the land for the next 28 years. She does not care if she is better than Logain, but she would not sacrifice so many soldiers to kill a king, she would send Zevran to deal with everyone till she is first in line ...


In Case of Civil war:

The Chantry´s: no big Problem
The Player can use the drangonkultist (if he didnt kill the dragon) as a counter.
What should the Chantry do against the reborn Andraste, the only option is to follow her. Every Chantry not folloing will get huntet down and burned. Didnt the dragonkultist say something like: after the Blight we take over the world? They shure would help you if they can become the main-religion of Fereldon.
The templars need Lyrium or the have to go throu a Detoxification. Make a deal with Bhelen, so he only sells Lyrium to THE PLAYER and no more to the Chantry. There will be a large number of Templars supporting there new dealer.

The Golem Army:
Branka needs souls, she dont care where these souls come from and i am shure the player can make a deal with her: 3 souls, 2 golems for her, 1 for his Army. Send her City-Elfs, Warprisoners and Criminals. (City-Elfs = no dalish support but dalish dont like you because you have a werwolfarmy)

The Crows:
Do the Crow-Quets and they like the Player. Give them Money and they will work for the Player.

The Circel:
They need Lyrium, if Behlen helps my charakter to get controll over the Lyrium, the mages will help you or run out of Lyrium very fast.

The Dwarfs:
Maby Behlen has no troups to support my charakter in a civil war against the lanting, but he can help you get controll over the Lyrium-Trade and he can help you get Golems from Branka.

Human Soldiers on your side:
As Human nobel you could get troups from High Ever, after killing Arl Howe. Maby the People there are still lojal to you.
Bann Alfstanna offers you Archers, because you helped her Brother.
The People of Redcliff owe you there Lives, maby they are more gratfull to you than to Eamon and his demonposses zombisummoning child?
The People of Fereldan love you, you ar there Hero. An agry mob with Pitchforks can do a lot of damage.

So if it comes to a civil war/ revolution(change from feudalims/aristocraty/"whatever they have" to asolute monarchy) the player has a army and can fight against there oponents.


Sorry BioWare you did a wunderfull Game and i had a lot of fun playing it, but i suppose i played the game i wished to play and not the game you developt for me to play. So the End is yours but the Kingdom should be mine

[David Gaider]

Tulicus wrote...
Sorry BioWare you did a wunderfull Game and i had a lot of fun playing it, but i suppose i played the game i wished to play and not the game you developt for me to play. So the End is yours but the Kingdom should be mine

Well... good luck with that, I guess.

[Dagorgil]

David Gaider wrote...

Tulicus wrote...
Sorry BioWare you did a wunderfull Game and i had a lot of fun playing it, but i suppose i played the game i wished to play and not the game you developt for me to play. So the End is yours but the Kingdom should be mine

Well... good luck with that, I guess.

Bioware has the best comebacks ever.  I mean it.

[ashez2ashes]

Well, I sort of agree with the spirit of the topic starter, if not the letter. It would have been nice for there to be some way to strong arm your way into a dictactorship.



The epilogue should probably say you brought ruin to the country though, or at least everything fell into civil war after you died.

[asaiasai]

People are sheep it is apparent today as people are still willing to have their opinions given to them in 30 second sound bites. Is this information true, it really does not matter, if repeated often enough it becomes true. No one but the participants of the lands meet know what really went on inside, so the sheep will be told only what you want them told. We are talking about a medieval society in which most common people could not read or only well enough in regards to their trade. In this the people are only going to hear what you tell them, there is no reason to believe that this would not work it happens daily on FOX and CNN. Howe intended to kill every Cousland in the castle and then he could make up any story he wanted. Scatter a few darkspawn corpses and weapons around instant alibi.
 
So as nothing has to be true only repeated often enough to legitimize the lie just hold and Iraqi election. All those opposed to me being king/queen raise your hands. Zeveran, Leliana if you please, few minutes later you hold another vote, rinse and repeat until there are no more nays. How do you secure the loyalty of the ones that support you or on the fence, easy give them the lands of the examples of those who do not. Who are laying in an ever expanding pool of their own blood. Who is going to know what went on in the lands meet except the survivors, and they are going to tell what ever version of events you want them to because their positions are linked to your position, self preservation kicks in. They will support the lie until it becomes the truth to them as well.
 
 
It is not that difficult of a stretch to put your PC on the throne, you come from a powerful family. You have saved the land from a blight with out requiring aid from another country ie, Orlais. The surviving nobles may not like you but they will in time as they assimilate their newly granted holdings. I think the OP laid it out very well, she removed or countered every objection, Loghain is dead, Anora needed to join him, Allister is coming back feet first, who is left? Eamon, you pulled is fat out of the fire twice he owes you. Eamon backs you or he winds up an example. Teagan gets a promotion and Isolde, i think that would be enough to garner his support.

So doing all this you step on a balcony read this;
 
I have the sad duty to inform the people of Feraldin that as i tried to convince Loghain of the danger of the coming blight. The nobles of the landsmeet also tried to impress upon Loghain the dangers facing Feraldin to no avail. Queen Anora tried to reason with her father and was struck down by his own hand. Loghain by the power of the landsmeet was removed as regent to be remanded to Fort Draklon to be held for trial on the charge of treason for killing the queen, his own daughter. I also have the sad duty to inform the people of Feraldin that Loghain resisted arrest during the ensuing scuffle the following nobles were also killed by Loghain or his retainers (read list of nobles who voted against you). I have been asked as a Cousland by the surviving nobles to be the king/queen to which i have reluctantly accepted, as always a Cousland does his/her duty to Feraldin i only hope the maker will bless me with his wisdom so that i can lead Feraldin into a bright future.
 
After a few months the land is healing the trains are running on time so to speak, you follow rule number on to ruling a successful empire. Keep the sheep stupid (regurgitation of facts on demand aka standardized testing), fed (dollar menus) and entertained (football or nascar). It is amazing how little politics has changed, probably because WE have not either.
 
Asai

[Xandurpein]

The supreme and ignorant confidence with which some people approach political realities on this thread is very funny to be honest. Maybe there exists some parallel universe people will hail you as savior for sacking Denerim with werewolves and transform the country to an anarchist collective or whatever. But it makes me think that there are more reasons than just sex and violence for this game to have an 18+ sign. It does seem to take a certain level of maturity to play it.

Sorry BioWare you did a wunderfull Game and i had a lot of fun playing it, but i suppose i played the game i wished to play and not the game you developt for me to play. So the End is yours but the Kingdom should be mine

It is even more amusing that they have the same cheerfully confident attitude when they explain to David Gaider that he got the history wrong in his own story. If you somehow did not play the same game we played, why don't you start a forum about the game you played, instead of posting on the forum for us who played Bioware's game. Just a thought...

[Maria Caliban]

"WTF! WTF why am i not the queen??!"



You know, I ask myself the same every day.

[Pimpmyvanagon]

Xandurpein wrote...

It is even more amusing that they have the same cheerfully confident attitude when they explain to David Gaider that he got the history wrong in his own story.

I would point out here that it's quite possible for a writer to make mistakes with their own story. It's called 'discontinuity', and it happens quite frequently, especially in media where there is a large amount of canon (established facts about the setting) that the writer must keep track of.

As I can see it, there are two (valid) complaints that have been brought up in this thread:
1. Anora's status as a monarch in her own right following Cailan's death (e.g. why is she a queen and not a princess-consort?).
2. Railroading in the Landsmeet dialogue forces an unwanted resolution in a game where Alistair dies (e.g. why can't our character persuade Alistair to execute Anora, or at least strip her of her titles and place in the line of succession so that Eamon or someone else would take the throne when Alistair dies; why can't our character attempt take the throne even if it would require a violent putsch and result in an unpleasant ending for Ferelden; etc. etc.)

I doubt either issue will ever be fixed (or, given the replies we've been getting in this thread, even acknowledged as issues), but it's worth bringing them up anyway. If nothing else, something for the writers to keep in mind when they're working on Dragon Age 2.

Modifié par Pimpmyvanagon, 16 décembre 2009 - 07:13 .

[Aedan_Cousland]

Tirigon wrote...

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

Invalidcode wrote...

They have to & will help you against the Blight, but not a civil war against Eamon.

Exactly.

The army you have gathered is only there to fight the Blight. Once the Blight is defeated, the Dwarves are headed back underground to fight in the Deep Roads, and the Dalish are returning to the forest. They are your allies, not your personal army. The same is true of the human soldiers. They serve their individual banns and Arls, and the only ones with any personal loyalty to you after everything is said in done is possibly Highever, since Fergus is named Teyrn. The PC would need more than the support of Highever however, to rule all of Ferelden.

The PC isn't going to have any support in waging a civil war for the crown following the Blight. Any attempt at seizing the crown by force would just expose the PC to the same problems Loghain faced: highly independent freeholders and banns that resented their traditional rights being trampled on, and who weren't too keen on kneeling to a tyrant. The monarchy in Ferelden is not an absolute one. It rules only with the consent of the freeholders.

They dont HAVE to help you, but ... The Dalish would use every chance to become free. If you promise them freedom and their own land, many of them would help for sure. Same goes for the magicians - at least for the libertarians and the bloodmages, which are the most powerful anyways. The dwarves aren´t sure, but they might help too, at least if you make sure you have a strong bound to their king and didnt go like "I dont care for you as long as you give me warriors". Dunno about Harrowmont, but Bhelen gives the impression that he would fight the Fereldans if you give him a good reason, such as gold or power.
And then, the  Fereldans themselfes...  I guess you could count on a lot of help by the people. After all, you saved them from the Archdemon, you saved their life and all, and you have proven yourself a powerful and (at least the way I played) kind and trustworthy leader. Compare that with Anora. She is a power-hungry woman whose father is an executed traitor, she sided with this traitor, though he had killed her own husband, King Caillan, and is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Fereldans, and she betrays even you, though you rescued her from certain death.
Honestly, who would you rather want to be your King? A hero who cares for the people or a greedy **** who cares for nothing but her own power?

Assuming that the PC is somehow able to convice the Dwarves and the Dalish to fight for him (highly unlikely), realistically how would that play out with the Bannorn? I can't imagine that inviting foreign armies into Ferelden to secure your crown would play out well with most of the nobles or do much in the way in giving your claim to the crown any semblance of legitimacy. Nor would it play out well with the common folk, especially in the case of the Dalish. Many humans despise Elves, and I would think the PC would have a major PR problem once some elements of his army start behaving like most  real world medieval armies did, and rape and pillage. Any political opponent worth his salt would skewer the PC in the landsmeet for inviting an army of Elves into Ferelden, and allowing them loot human farms and defile human women. Promising the Dalish land in Ferelden in exchange for the crown would be political suicide. Evicting human farmers from their land or stripping banns or arls of the fiefdoms to grant territory to foreign elves isn't very likely to do much in the way of garnering popular support. In fact I would bet it would have the opposite effect, with most of the country despising the PC as a traitor. His own allies would probably desert him.

The PC can't rule without consent of the people, and being the hero that stopped the Blight isn't going to be enough to guarantee support if you try to muscle your way to the crown with an army of Dwarves and Dalish Elves.

[Xandurpein]

Pimpmyvanagon wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

It is even more amusing that they have the same cheerfully confident attitude when they explain to David Gaider that he got the history wrong in his own story.

I would point out here that it's quite possible for a writer to make mistakes with their own story. It's called 'discontinuity', and it happens quite frequently, especially in media where there is a large amount of canon (established facts about the setting) that the writer must keep track of.

As I can see it, there are two (valid) complaints that have been brought up in this thread:
1. Anora's status as a monarch in her own right following Cailan's death (e.g. why is she a queen and not a princess-consort?).
2. Railroading in the Landsmeet dialogue forces an unwanted resolution in a game where Alistair dies (e.g. why can't our character persuade Alistair to execute Anora, or at least strip her of her titles and place in the line of succession so that Eamon or someone else would take the throne when Alistair dies; why can't our character attempt take the throne even if it would require a violent putsch and result in an unpleasant ending for Ferelden; etc. etc.)

I doubt either issue will ever be fixed (or, given the replies we've been getting in this thread, even acknowledged as issues), but it's worth bringing them up anyway. If nothing else, something for the writers to keep in mind when they're working on Dragon Age 2.

1. It is something decided when the marriage is arranged. Anora WAS Queen, not consort. If you play a male and propose to marry Anora you can ask her to be King, rather than consort. She then states that she won't make you King, as she wants to rule herself, implying that she indeed has a choice in the matter. I would assume that Alistair could in fact have made a player Queen, not consort if he wanted to. Maybe he would in time. This does of course have no bearing what so ever on the succession for the OP, as it has been pointed out several times you are NOT Queen/Princess until after the wedding,  which is later. So in no way can you have Alistair sacrifice himself and be Queen.

2. I personally believe that you cannot force Alistair into killing Anora, becuase he would consider it morally wrong. Just because Alistair lets you lead, doesn't mean you can make him do morally repugnent choices. Just because you can play it so you won't hear Alistair voice the reason to let Anora live, i.e. that Anora is still next in line and it his duty to let her live so a ruler with a legitimate claim can take his place if he dies, doesn't mean that he doesn't think so. Anora and Alistair are the only persons with a reasonably legitimate claim to the throne. If both died Ferelden might dissolve into chaos and be swallowed by Orlais again. If your dream is to be dictator of Ferelden by waving a bloody sword, I think a guy like Alistair will never help you, and you really ought to understand that.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 16 décembre 2009 - 09:23 .

[Emryc]

Just because I had sex with the widowed and childless heiress of the Hilton-Gates fortune doesn't make me a heir to the fortune either.

[Xandurpein]

Emryc wrote...

Just because I had sex with the widowed and childless heiress of the Hilton-Gates fortune doesn't make me a heir to the fortune either.

ROFL! But what a field day for the lawyers if you could...