55 réponses à ce sujet

[hexaligned]

He's dead Jim.

[Liamv2]

harden alister? NO!! he is even more whiney than normal if you do that

[JimTasty]

Forst1999 wrote...

I really don't like the option. The "everyone is out for themselves" line isn't something that you would expect to make people more responsible, but something that makes people egoistical cynics. There are several other options which can result in a "hard" person ruling the country. Alistair with a Cousland queen, Alistair with Anora, Anora alone, Alistair with a warden chancellor.
But to be honest, I've never been all that fond of Dragon Age's "Only jerks make good kings" stance. Loghain goading Maric into killing Katriel for example. Killing people in blind rage isn't very kingly or just. And I don't see how emotionally wrecking him was supposed to make him a better king.

Loghain was showning Maric that when youre king that you are going to have to make some tough decisions in life, like dealing with traitors

[Fast Jimmy]

How is this DA3 related, exactly?

[Corker]

Forst1999 wrote...

But to be honest, I've never been all that fond of Dragon Age's "Only jerks make good kings" stance. Loghain goading Maric into killing Katriel for example. Killing people in blind rage isn't very kingly or just. And I don't see how emotionally wrecking him was supposed to make him a better king.

It's not.  Then again, nothing I've read about Maric has convinced me that he was a particularly good king. 

A ruler can't be worried about pleasing everyone, or everyone liking him.  Alistair wants very, very badly to be liked, or better - loved.  The nobles will sniff that out in a heartbeat and use it against him.  Hardening helps him get over caring so much what other people think of him personally, and lets him make (what he considers to be) the best decisions for Ferelden regardless of whether or not it upsets that bann who took him hunting and was so nice to him last week.

But if he's not king, there's much less reason to do it.

[Forst1999]

JimTasty wrote...

Forst1999 wrote...

I really don't like the option. The "everyone is out for themselves" line isn't something that you would expect to make people more responsible, but something that makes people egoistical cynics. There are several other options which can result in a "hard" person ruling the country. Alistair with a Cousland queen, Alistair with Anora, Anora alone, Alistair with a warden chancellor.
But to be honest, I've never been all that fond of Dragon Age's "Only jerks make good kings" stance. Loghain goading Maric into killing Katriel for example. Killing people in blind rage isn't very kingly or just. And I don't see how emotionally wrecking him was supposed to make him a better king.

Loghain was showning Maric that when youre king that you are going to have to make some tough decisions in life, like dealing with traitors

While withholding important information with the intend of provoking an highly emotional reaction. Showing that you have to make tough decisions is fine, but they also have to be made based on facts and in a rational manner.

[FaWa]

oh how such large important matters are hidden in such innocent dialogue. The whole hardedning thing was pretty dumb, one of the worst parts of DAO. Lelliana's hardening was not as ridiculous though

[JimTasty]

Forst1999 wrote...

JimTasty wrote...

Forst1999 wrote...

I really don't like the option. The "everyone is out for themselves" line isn't something that you would expect to make people more responsible, but something that makes people egoistical cynics. There are several other options which can result in a "hard" person ruling the country. Alistair with a Cousland queen, Alistair with Anora, Anora alone, Alistair with a warden chancellor.
But to be honest, I've never been all that fond of Dragon Age's "Only jerks make good kings" stance. Loghain goading Maric into killing Katriel for example. Killing people in blind rage isn't very kingly or just. And I don't see how emotionally wrecking him was supposed to make him a better king.

Loghain was showning Maric that when youre king that you are going to have to make some tough decisions in life, like dealing with traitors

While withholding important information with the intend of provoking an highly emotional reaction. Showing that you have to make tough decisions is fine, but they also have to be made based on facts and in a rational manner.

Do you think Loghain made the right decision with Maric?

[JimTasty]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

How is this DA3 related, exactly?

read the end of my original post

[Forst1999]

Corker wrote...
A ruler can't be worried about pleasing everyone, or everyone liking him.  Alistair wants very, very badly to be liked, or better - loved.  The nobles will sniff that out in a heartbeat and use it against him.  Hardening helps him get over caring so much what other people think of him personally, and lets him make (what he considers to be) the best decisions for Ferelden regardless of whether or not it upsets that bann who took him hunting and was so nice to him last week.

But if he's not king, there's much less reason to do it.

That's a pretty good point, he would be less easy to exploit. But the way it is written, it most comes across more like "he will care more for what he personally wants". Take his willingness to take the Warden as his mistress if he is hardened. That isn't for the good of Ferelden (it's even a small problem), it's for his personal pleasure. I don't think this whole thing necessarily makes him a better king, it has upsides and downsides.

[Zjarcal]

Obviously this is tremendously relevant to those who don't make Alistair king.

[Leonia]

I'd harden your Alistair.

[Forst1999]

JimTasty wrote...

Forst1999 wrote...

While withholding important information with the intend of provoking an highly emotional reaction. Showing that you have to make tough decisions is fine, but they also have to be made based on facts and in a rational manner.

Do you think Loghain made the right decision with Maric?

It's been a while since I've read the book, but no, I think it was wrong. Katriel had cut her connections to the Orleasians, and looking at her recent deeds, I don't think an instant execution was justice. Her death also served no tactical purpose, in fact she could have been a valuable asset. It wasn't a king passing justice, it was an angry man striking someone down. It wasn't a strategic necessity, it was just a lesson. A lesson that wrecked Maric, if I remember "The Calling" correctly. Granted, the whole Katriel situation could have become a problem in many ways anyway, but I don't think this lesson was worth it.

[JimTasty]

Forst1999 wrote...

JimTasty wrote...

Forst1999 wrote...

While withholding important information with the intend of provoking an highly emotional reaction. Showing that you have to make tough decisions is fine, but they also have to be made based on facts and in a rational manner.

Do you think Loghain made the right decision with Maric?

It's been a while since I've read the book, but no, I think it was wrong. Katriel had cut her connections to the Orleasians, and looking at her recent deeds, I don't think an instant execution was justice. Her death also served no tactical purpose, in fact she could have been a valuable asset. It wasn't a king passing justice, it was an angry man striking someone down. It wasn't a strategic necessity, it was just a lesson. A lesson that wrecked Maric, if I remember "The Calling" correctly. Granted, the whole Katriel situation could have become a problem in many ways anyway, but I don't think this lesson was worth it.

Do you think that Katriel shouldve been held responsbile for the thousands of deaths she caused?

[Forst1999]

JimTasty wrote...

Do you think that Katriel shouldve been held responsbile for the thousands of deaths she caused?

Just reread the scene, apparantly I had forgotten quite a bit. Including this whole West Hills thing. So yeah, that was high treason with lots of victims. So sentencing her to death wouldn't have been unjust (at least in a world where such penalties are common).
But I stand by the point that a king shouldn't make such decisions out of personal feelings. And in the situation as it was, Maric killed her for the personal betrayal, not to pass justice or because it benefits his country. That's not the way to do it in my opinion.
But maybe we're really getting a bit off-topic (not that it matters to much amidst all this "Alister gets hard" jokes.

[MisterJB]

Forst1999 wrote...
But to be honest, I've never been all that fond of Dragon Age's "Only jerks make good kings" stance.

Not "jerks". Ruthless cynists. And it's an obvious side effect from having "A Song of Ice and Fire" where we are told again and again how good men make bad kings and bad men make good kings, as a major source of inspiration.
Personally, It's a stance I agree with.

[Taint Master]

It's not really about making Alistair act like a jerk... but unhardened, the guy is a complete marshmallow.

[The Hierophant]

MisterJB wrote...

Forst1999 wrote...
But to be honest, I've never been all that fond of Dragon Age's "Only jerks make good kings" stance.

Not "jerks". Ruthless cynists. And it's an obvious side effect from having "A Song of Ice and Fire" where we are told again and again how good men make bad kings and bad men make good kings, as a major source of inspiration.
Personally, It's a stance I agree with.

I  thought that having Alistair as a figurehead for pr, with Anora being the primary decision maker, and Eamon/Teagan as an advisor was a good combination, and the best to rule as opposed to the other outcomes. 

[Forst1999]

MisterJB wrote...

Forst1999 wrote...
But to be honest, I've never been all that fond of Dragon Age's "Only jerks make good kings" stance.

Not "jerks". Ruthless cynists. And it's an obvious side effect from having "A Song of Ice and Fire" where we are told again and again how good men make bad kings and bad men make good kings, as a major source of inspiration.
Personally, It's a stance I agree with.

I don't think it's that easy in "A Song of Ice and Fire". The ability to govern a country, the day-to-day business,  isn't impaired by being a good man, only playing for the throne is. Ned was a prefectly able ruler in the north. Certain someones (avoiding spoilers for people who only watch the show), by all accounts ruthless and cynical, are horrible at ruling. I admit the a certain ruthlessness is necessary when competing for the power, but that's not all there is.
And I don't think the rules of Westeros can be applied to Ferelden. Much smaller, more unified country and fewer nobility that could compete with the crown, a dynasty that hasn't made itself impossible and is in fact quite popular, less infighting, more external threats (that people actually acknowldge). Not saying it would be easy to keep the nobility quite, but it couldn't be as bad as seen in ASoIaF.

[MisterJB]

Forst1999 wrote...
I don't think it's that easy in "A Song of Ice and Fire". The ability to govern a country, the day-to-day business,  isn't impaired by being a good man, only playing for the throne is. Ned was a prefectly able ruler in the north. Certain someones (avoiding spoilers for people who only watch the show), by all accounts ruthless and cynical, are horrible at ruling. I admit the a certain ruthlessness is necessary when competing for the power, but that's not all there is.

Spoilers for "Dance with Dragons" ahead. You have been warned!





On the other hand, we can make a comparison between Daenerys completely failing to rule Meeren after having conquered it and Tywin Lannister who managed to give the seven kingdoms twenty years of peace and prosperity.
Now, while ruthlessness and cynicism alone do not qualify someone for ruling as Cersei Lannister has proven, the reason Daenerys failed was weakness as many are quick to point out. Her unwilligness to release the dragons, her unwilligness to slaugther the ruling families of Meeren or even to kill the hostages they provided, her desire to crush the slave trade, etc.
Weakness is not the trait a king should have and unharded Alistair is quite weak.

And I don't think the rules of Westeros can be applied to Ferelden. Much smaller, more unified country and fewer nobility that could compete with the crown, a dynasty that hasn't made itself impossible and is in fact quite popular, less infighting, more external threats (that people actually acknowldge). Not saying it would be easy to keep the nobility quite, but it couldn't be as bad as seen in ASoIaF.

There are certainly differences between Ferelden and Westeros and I did not claim otherwise in my previous post. Only that "ASOIAF" is a major souce of inspiration to those who created Thedas and thus, one shouldn't be surprised if people such as Anora are lauded as good options for ruling positions.

[Tootles FTW]

I'm married to Alistair in DA:O and our epilogue slide said that we were much beloved by the people. Also, sexual euphemisms with the word "harden" work very well for my Warden in this particular scenario.

[Shadow Fox]

I always put Anora on the throne she wanted it*wheras Alistair didn't* and she'd already been running the country to good effect so yeah she gets the throne **** that old geezer.

and Alistair stays unhardened.

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 14 novembre 2012 - 04:25 .

[LolaLei]

I just keep him as a Warden, then I don't need to harden him.

... hehe harden. 

[Forst1999]

MisterJB wrote...
Spoilers for "Dance with Dragons" ahead. You have been warned!





On the other hand, we can make a comparison between Daenerys completely failing to rule Meeren after having conquered it and Tywin Lannister who managed to give the seven kingdoms twenty years of peace and prosperity.

Tywin indeed is an efficient ruler. Though the whole"slaughter entire villages because someone abducted my son" is problematic. If there is something that benefits his house but harms the country, Tywin often choses the house. Not asking for selflessness here, but there are certain problems with his approach.

Now, while ruthlessness and cynicism alone do not qualify someone for ruling as Cersei Lannister has proven, the reason Daenerys failed was weakness as many are quick to point out. Her unwilligness to release the dragons, her unwilligness to slaugther the ruling families of Meeren or even to kill the hostages they provided, her desire to crush the slave trade, etc.
Weakness is not the trait a king should have and unharded Alistair is quite weak.

Though the task Deanerys chose might have been to big even for someone who had been willing to do all this things. Really, conquering Westeros looks easier than reforming Mereen. But this is pretty off-topic again.

Back to Alistair: From what we see in the game, I still think hardening him only makes him more weary of other's intentions (good), and more likely to let personal feelings influence his decisions (not so good). I don't see how this makes him strong if he was weak beforehand.

Modifié par Forst1999, 14 novembre 2012 - 04:40 .