129 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Rainen89 wrote...

He kills harrowmont so that there's no rebellions later on in the future you'd be hard pressed to find a case of civil war where the winning side just let the loser's leader live. He wanted the problem over and done with. It's not evil, if it is then so was everyone else. The end he changes orzammar so that the lower castes have more freedom and rights, how in the world is that evil? I'm sure the nobles who don't have to do a damn thing and get anything they want because they were born into a certain house were pissed. (And why they tried to kill HIM.) he didn't just randomly start punching babies in the street because he thought it was fun. Harrowmont goes to the surface doing raids taking innocents and forcing them to be golems, Bhelen tries to have it destroyed at the end because of Branka. I'm not seeing the evil part.

Because people suffer. Big time. Different people. Anyone who's isn't a Bhelen supporter ends up dead or tortured. That isn't a improvement. The casteless getting more rights is, but at what cost? A dicratorship led by a bloodthirsty tyrant is still a dictatorship where generations will suffer, even if it does improve on some acpect of the culture.
Regarding the assmebly - the decision of the Assembly is universally accepted. You don't kill hte opposiing candidate, especially if he accepts you as hte king. Bhelens actions have shocked the Assembly (he attacks hte whole Assembly if he loses). If he wins he disbands or eliminates the Assembly. If he has the anvil it's even worse. He ends up throwing people at it left and right, and while he does re-capture some thaigs, he also pisses off everyone on the surface and starts a war with Branka.
To put it simply Bhelen is a honourless swine, even by dwarven standards. The only thing good about him is his policy on the casteless, and that's it.


Harrowmont isn't a bad leader - the fact that he has jsut as many followers and support as Bhelen proves that. He's not a tyrant. Bhelen can institute whatever changes he watns because he makes himself a dictator - he has no opposition, no votes in the assembly, he kills anyone who's dare to vote against him.
Harrowmont is a "regular" politician. He has opposition in the Assembly, so he can't pass laws and changes as easily as Bhelen, since he doesn't torture and kill like crazy. Ultimatively, Harrowmontis rather unlucky in that regard, and because of his good nature can't force the changes trough. He respects the laws.
Under normal circumstances, he would make a fine king. But alas, circumstances aren't normal.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 29 décembre 2009 - 08:20 .

[Stuffy38]

Maybe you are looking for a definition of 'necessary evil' ? Your reference seems to regard evil as a catalyst for change - and yes you might be onto something.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of
the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine"  (Thomas Jefferson)

Modifié par Stuffy38, 29 décembre 2009 - 09:29 .

[NinjaWJ]

i sided with Bhelen. I thought it was more legit that the King's son deserves to rule. But i think he did a good job, relaxing the caste system and helping out the casteless. Too bad there was no democracy in the end.

[Nathair Nimheil]

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of
the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine"  (Thomas Jefferson)

Which is why, in recognition of that, democratic nations have constitutions, charters and bills of rights, supreme courts, etc. To make sure that just because you have democratic elements to your government you don't end up with the unbridled tyranny of the majority.

Bhelen provides eonomic prosperity and military expansion in return for the loss of civil liberties and descent into dictatorship; he makes the trains run on time, what could possibly go wrong? :innocent:

[Vergil_dgk]

Yeah the Jefferson quote really shows a very shallow understanding of democracy; in a true democracy an individual is in the possession of rights that the majority cannot overrule (right to life, freedom, property). Satanism is pretty shallow as philosophies go anyway and Lavey wasn't much of a thinker, I had a couple of friends who were caught up in it... just sad really.

[Bomfy]

The thing is Bhelen isn't that clandestine about it. Harromont is. Yeah Bhelen had some docs forged and whatnot, that truly pales in comparison to attempting to take the thrown.

[Ealdred]

Rainen89 wrote...

< Still thinks dwarven nobles should be allowed to proclaim themselves as king/queen after dealing with Branka

I agree. Even though the PC is a Grey Warden I think there should be an option for the PC to elect a temporary head of state until he/she is able to return and take over as King/Queen.

[Ulrik the Slayer]

Rainen89 wrote...

Why the hell does everyone think Bhelen is the "evil" one. Bhelen is probably the only fair ruler there is, the only dick move he ever does that the PC would notice is if you play a dwarven noble and even then you got beat, in that culture it's commonplace your own father did the same freakin' thing. Harrowmont + anvil at the end = really short supervillain.

Indeed.

To us, who are not part of dwarven society, he might seem evil. But in reality he is just a very, veeeery good dwarven politician. Its how dwarves do politics.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...
To us, who are not part of dwarven society, he might seem evil. But in reality he is just a very, veeeery good dwarven politician. Its how dwarves do politics.

Apparently not. Given that attacking tthe assembly is not how dwarves do politics...it's murder and breakign every law and tradition.

[Ulrik the Slayer]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ulrik the Slayer wrote...
To us, who are not part of dwarven society, he might seem evil. But in reality he is just a very, veeeery good dwarven politician. Its how dwarves do politics.

Apparently not. Given that attacking tthe assembly is not how dwarves do politics...it's murder and breakign every law and tradition.

That's just because he becomes desperate when everything he planned is a waste. Everything else he does is pure genius.

[Vergil_dgk]

Well the game does state that he is brilliant, though I wouldn't go as far as saying any of the actions we see him take are especially genius (mostly textbook villain stuff), if he does succeed the reason (imo) would be that he is brilliant, not that he is ruthless, though it is a distinction many may fail to make.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Bhelen is a classic example of how once in a while, ruthless Machivellianism can actually work out for the betterment of society.

Yes, Bhelen is ruthless, and will stop at nothing to achieve his ends. Yet it turns out his ends actually benefit and progress a corrupt, decaying society. The situation of the casteless certainly will not change without the issue being forced. The dwarves don't care, and are perfectly happy with the oppresiveness. Thus, unless the issue is forced, but in the end, it is more beneficial, since dwarven society, left to its own devices, will decay. The fact that the assmebly is so opposed to this that Bhelen finally dissolves it further shows that in the end, those Bhelen rules are really just as bad as he is. 

While the dwarves themselves might be content to wallow in the decaying stink of their rigid idealogies until they become extinct through inaction and tradition, Bhelen does not want to see this, and thus, he is going to make certain dwarves survive and thrive, whether they want to or not. People who hold hard to "old ways" would rather take everyone with them to extinction than budge, so you need that iron hammer to move them.

Satanist? Maybe, though Satanism itself, if you know anything about it, is not inherently evil, just amoral and brutally pragmatic. Bhelen is definitely no saint, but neither is he completely evil. He is ruthless and relentless, but in this case, the result is a win for his whole culture.

[Sabriana]

My first real glimpse of dwarven culture my PCs (human/elven) get is after entering the commons and witness the fracas. We then hear the captain having conniption fits over these things happening on a regular basis.

Next we go to see assembly, and hear the steward yelling that he already doubled the guards to keep the nobles from going for each others' throats.

Then we are accosted by two reps for each candidate. One is the king's son, one a lord. Both use the not overall approved methods, such as bribery (Harrowmond) or forgery (Bhelen). Even though the bribery is pretty clear, the forgery not so much. What do my human/elf PC's know about dwarf society after all? Is it possible that the shaper is biased? Could be.

Next we hear that the King asked on his deathbed that Harrowmond succeed him, or at least not allow his youngest son to become King. Now, we, as PC's are a bit suspicious of deathbed declarations that no one other than the benefactor witnesses. If the King was so disappointed, why wait until he's ready to die to bar his own son from being the heir to the throne? That's a pretty drastic step, after all. Bhelen might, or might not have had a hand in the destruction of his family, but there's never anything concrete other than Harrowmond's word. As human/elf we have no further knowledge of the happenings in Orzammar.

But, trying not to judge another culture through the eyes of our own, we hedge our bets and accept both first quests. We go into the deep roads to find Lord Dace, and get our first glimpse of the horror that is dwarven every day life. So we are now even more careful not to judge their culture through our eyes. We go into the Proving and there we get our first indication how we should decide. Both fighters we like and respect champion Bhelen. Seweryn is a good man, eager to help, and even wants to join the GWs. The other one is a quiet and honorable man, I forget the name, it's the guy who needs to meditate before the fight.

Then comes Dust town. My city elf feels like she's just been hit over the head with the alienage, my dalish remebers re- and oppression, and my humans feel bad about the fate and treatment those poor dwarfs receive. We are outraged that the woman has been given two choices: leave the baby in the deep roads (we shudder at the thought, we just returned from there), or live in abject poverty as a caste-less. We hear Nadezda's story about kneecaps and dung, and we are sad and upset. The way of life forced on the caste-less touches us, but we remember that Bhelen speaks for them, while Harrowmond wants stagnation. The merchants also tell us that Bhelen wishes to open the dwarfs, and that is usually a two way street. Many can benefit from that, not only the surface dwarfs, and caste-less.

Is there a danger in that? Certainly, there always is, but it appears to us that Bhelen has more plus-points than Harrowmond. We can't do an in-depth study, we're in a hurry, the Blight won't wait for us to sort out political policies from a culture we know nothing about. So we add it all up, and Bhelen comes out the winner. It doesn't hurt that he is of true Aeducan blood. We know he's a scoundrel, but so is the other one. Bhelen just managed to collect more positives than Harrowmond.

Modifié par Sabriana, 29 décembre 2009 - 12:48 .

[Vergil_dgk]

Bhelen is good at power politics, no doubt about it. And while brutal power-mongers may occasionally benefit the societies they exist in, this only occurs when those benefits happen to be in their own interests. In the world today we see most of the brutal-power mongers just desperately clinging onto power while their countries decline (Zimbabwe, Syria, Cuba etc.), which is the far more likely outcome when such people hold office. It is difficult to talk about complex characters being evil in any absolute terms, but several of Bhelens acts are most certainly evil. However, in his defence he does exist in a society that is oppressive to begin with, so acts of revolution against the order of that society also have beneficial sides. His motives, though, are completely selfish as far as I can tell.

Modifié par Vergil_dgk, 29 décembre 2009 - 12:51 .

[Ulrik the Slayer]

Doing a bit of meta-gaming, it is interesting to see how Bhelen ultimately improves the dwarven society while Harrowmont brings it to the brink of collapse.

[Baronesa]

Vergil_dgk wrote...

Yeah the Jefferson quote really shows a very shallow understanding of democracy; in a true democracy an individual is in the possession of rights that the majority cannot overrule (right to life, freedom, property).

Yet in California, a majority stripped a minority of their civil rights by voting... if you consider that, that quote fits perfectly.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Satanist? Maybe, though Satanism itself, if you know anything about it, is not inherently evil, just amoral and brutally pragmatic. Bhelen is definitely no saint, but neither is he completely evil. He is ruthless and relentless, but in this case, the result is a win for his whole culture.

Partially. People still suffer, only different people.
Bhelens politics are sounder and he is ruthless enough to push changes trough at any cost.
Harrowmont doesn't have the strength to push changes, or is reluctant to make them.

Ultimatively, neither of them is really a good choice.
With Harrowmont there is a decline in the power, with Bhelen an expension followed by aversion and renewed internal strife. Sucks either way.

[Vergil_dgk]

Baronesa wrote...

Vergil_dgk wrote...

Yeah the Jefferson quote really shows a very shallow understanding of democracy; in a true democracy an individual is in the possession of rights that the majority cannot overrule (right to life, freedom, property).

Yet in California, a majority stripped a minority of their civil rights by voting... if you consider that, that quote fits perfectly.

I guess that is more a problem with your constitution than with democracy itself, in my country, such a thing couldn't happen. That said, it IS true that individual rights must be protected against mob rule -but this is what the courts of law are for. There is a reason all power should not be vested in any one individual or group. It is a common misconception that democracy is only about voting every four years. Good institutions and rule of law are just as essential.

[Kinaori]

The question here is whether the ends justify the means, no? The Blood Mage you encounter in the Tower presents you with the same question. What did you do with her? I think different people just have different tolerances for different "flavors" of evil. Some just seem nastier than others, even if they're essentially the same.



Personally, "ends justify the means" is a horse**** and cowardly way to produce change. The peaceful protesters and the monk who made a statement speak more bravely by far.

[Dark83]

Nathair Nimheil wrote...
Bhelen provides eonomic prosperity and military expansion in return for the loss of civil liberties and descent into dictatorship; he makes the trains run on time, what could possibly go wrong? :innocent:

Actually, I would say that numerically, Bhelen increased civil liberties. Since the Casteless suddenly gained rights and a position in society, after all. They now have a greater effective amount of freedom than before.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Baronesa wrote...

Vergil_dgk wrote...

Yeah the Jefferson quote really shows a very shallow understanding of democracy; in a true democracy an individual is in the possession of rights that the majority cannot overrule (right to life, freedom, property).

Yet in California, a majority stripped a minority of their civil rights by voting... if you consider that, that quote fits perfectly.

Or in Switzerland, where the majority apparently thinks that having only 4 minarets is terrifying, so decided to ban them all.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vergil_dgk wrote...

Baronesa wrote...

Vergil_dgk wrote...

Yeah the Jefferson quote really shows a very shallow understanding of democracy; in a true democracy an individual is in the possession of rights that the majority cannot overrule (right to life, freedom, property).

Yet in California, a majority stripped a minority of their civil rights by voting... if you consider that, that quote fits perfectly.

I guess that is more a problem with your constitution than with democracy itself, in my country, such a thing couldn't happen. That said, it IS true that individual rights must be protected against mob rule -but this is what the courts of law are for. There is a reason all power should not be vested in any one individual or group. It is a common misconception that democracy is only about voting every four years. Good institutions and rule of law are just as essential.

You are talking about a Republic, not a democracy in the true sense of the word. Most so called "democracies today" are Republics. In a true democracy, the will of the majority is above everything.  

[Dark83]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Or in Switzerland, where the majority apparently thinks that having only 4 minarets is terrifying, so decided to ban them all.

I don't blame the Swiss. I blame the militant Islamic extremists. If everyone wasn't so threatened and scared, they wouldn't care. Nobody's scared of the Buddhists, so nobody has messed up reactions to their religion inflitrating society.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dark83 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Or in Switzerland, where the majority apparently thinks that having only 4 minarets is terrifying, so decided to ban them all.

I don't blame the Swiss. I blame the militant Islamic extremists. If everyone wasn't so threatened and scared, they wouldn't care. Nobody's scared of the Buddhists, so nobody has messed up reactions to their religion inflitrating society.

I am not going to argue about this, as it's way off-topic. What the Swiss have done is empower those extremists more than anything else now. 
Once upon a time, the Jews were victims of the same bs.  

[Fleapants]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
You are talking about a Republic, not a democracy in the true sense of the word. Most so called "democracies today" are Republics. In a true democracy, the will of the majority is above everything.  

That would be a dictatorship by majority ^^
In a true democracy, the rights of the induvidual is guaranteed by the constitution, which the majority isn't allowed to overrule.