129 réponses à ce sujet

[steelfire_dragon]

my only comment in that thread is as follows.
there is no known proof that Behlen killed his father or his brother.
there is no proof that harrowmont did or did not poison the forrmer king.

they you see both ahd something to gain, and bhelen was right on one thing, who was to say what eimien said on his deathbed when harrowmont was the only one present.

keeping up with tradition is great and all, however in the end harrowmont will only doom his people to their death, as he would seclude his people even more than they already are, and the dusttown is an untapped resource as far as soldiers would be concerned

[Slayer299]

actually steelfire, Bhelen didn't kill his older brother (don't know about dad), but he set up his two brothers (oldest and next oldest) so one died and the other was kicked out of Orzammar. You find this out through the dwarf noble origin.

[MorningBird]

Slayer299 wrote...

actually steelfire, Bhelen didn't kill his older brother (don't know about dad), but he set up his two brothers (oldest and next oldest) so one died and the other was kicked out of Orzammar. You find this out through the dwarf noble origin.

Actually, in the Dwarf noble origin, don't you have the option of either killing Trian or being framed for his murder?  I'm not 100% sure on this, as the dwarf origins are the ones I have yet to play, but that's what I've picked up around the forum.

Either way, even if Behlen didn't kill Trian with his own two hands, he was the one who put the entire scenario into motion, making him responsible (and the PC partly responsible if they fell for Behlen's goading) for both Trian's death and the middle brother's banishment.

[wrathofnature]

Personally I don't think there is a 'good' choice here. This is the best Q chain in the game imo.

Bhelen is a powerhungry, corrupt and willing to go to extreme measures to accomplish his goals but is a strong and visionary leader interested hugely innovating dwarven culture.

Harrowmont is a honest and not a dictator like Bhelen (whose more enlightend than tyranical imo) but is hugely racist against people below his station and is a weak leader.

From a neutral standpoint (city elf) I went with Bhelen (with dwarf noble origin I went harrowmont for revenge) because he's the better leader for long term progress I thought and I couldn't didn't like the dwarf caste system he fanatically supported.

[ZaroktheImmortal]

Tirigon wrote...

Dark83 wrote...

Back to the original topic, I'm kind of confused regarding "Satanist" as used here. I'm guessing it's not referring to "religion of worshipping Satan" from context, but I was under the impression that would be the definition in the dictonary.

'cause I'm pretty sure the Stone ain't Satan.

Satanism includes much more than worshipping Satan. It´s a religion that glorifies freedom, indulgence, power etc... The OP had the theory that Bhelen would be the one a Satanist would choose as king, for he is pretty much like a Satanist - power-hungry, decadent, lewd, doing everything to reach his goals, and in the end would be good for the dwarfen society, so he does not do evil things for the sake of evil, but with reason. LaVey had the theory that most positive changes in humanity are forced by people considered as "evil". Exactly that happens in the dwarfen society with Bhelen as king.

Actually LaVeyan Satanism is not actual Devil Worship. They use Satan as more of a Symbol to represent their opposition to things such as religions like christianity. It seems like more of a philosphy for Atheist than an actual religion. Also Anton LaVey had said not to worship or pray to deities. The idea of LaVeyan Satanism is to make yourself your own God. Instead of asking a god for help do something to solve your own problems. Instead of thanking a god realise your own achievements and thank yourself.

Whether or not Bhelen is actually good or evil is beside the point. Anton LaVey had the idea that people who were seen as evil or cruel have influenced change. Bhelen would at least at first seem much harsher. Yet despite his flaws he arguably influences change for the better. He may be a tyrant, yet he makes changes that are necessary for his peoples survival. Which seemed to go along with Anton LaVey's idea. The discussions about it reminded me of what Anton LaVey wrote which is why I created this topic.