41 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

Faerunner wrote...

It seems to me that IntoTheDarkness is judging with extreme bias. So much for the title.

Indeed. Especially since his theory that Anora is terrible because women suck at being wartime rulers doesn't hold water. The only "war" Anora or Alistair is involved in is the Battle of Denerim. Which they win. Objectively, they are equals at being wartime rulers, if you can even call that battle the war.

[mousestalker]

Someone had best let Catherine the Great know this rule about women leaders. I am sure she would be delighted to know.

[atum]

Not to mention one of the main parts of the game's lore is based on Jeanne d'Arc.

I hope IntoTheDarkness is trolling.

[IntoTheDarkness]

atum wrote...

Not to mention one of the main parts of the game's lore is based on Jeanne d'Arc.

I hope IntoTheDarkness is trolling.

No, I am not trolling. BSN, or any other online communities for that matter, has bad habits accusing someome of trolling/ignorance just because (s)he has a different opinion from the majority. The former is pointless, the latter is a personal attack which is not necessary in a debate unless you want to be a troll yourself. I am often reminded online forums are not a good place to have a proper discussion.

I've given my reasons to support my claim and I think it's not too much ask you do the same without having me branded with sexist and troll marks. I don't think you would appreciate being unfoundedly called an extreme feminist from a stranger, hence I have refrained from such pointless mockery.

You could start refuting by first reading the post I paraphrased. Someone mentioned three historical cases of a female leader leading a nation to victory in war. Those are rare cases and most women will not be even given a chance to fight war regardless of her capability. Before modern times, most succession laws favored male, miliatry rarely accepted females, and there had been always fewer women than men in both politics and war. It means having a female as a head of an army or a nation was rather uncommon. This fact alone can impact a nation's prestige in international society and have more people challening the legitimacy of a ruler.

I don't even need to reargue the army being composed of mostly male soldiers thus a male leader having advantages at nominating the right person to lead and understanding the psychology of opponent general who is most likely a male. If there are two candidates of the opposite gender who are equally ept at war, male is a better choice. It will be a better choice even today in many societies where gender equality has not been achieved. As far as I know, there are few nations who have women combat soldiers.

Talking about sexism is completely off the point for there are difference between females and males. Women will exceed men at some fields and vice versa. If we were talking about amazonion female warrior tribes or other matriarchal societies, I would claim otherwiese and say that females are more fit to rule a nation in those societies.

To avoid any selective dyslexia, I will stress that if a female is more capable than a male, she will make a better ruler as long as her qualities are more than enough to cover social prejudices. Even in America, women often get paid less in avarage. It's sexism, but someone observing it and saying that women are treated unfairly thus they have less chance of success is not sexism. In medieval ages women had extremely low chance of success, and it would take her extraordinary talents to even be able to rule a nation without having a powerful male benefactor.

Listing successful women at war or ruling of a nation does not prove that women would be equally capable at the job than counterpart men because those women you listed were already extraordinary both in their talents and in their circumstances. The frequency of female sovereign in history alone is enough proof to say females had some trouble becoming and reigning as leaders in the past time.



However, as I admitted, I should not assume this works the same way in the world of DA:O, as it has less patriachism than the actualities. And while I view Alistair more suited to be a king, it is a subjective opinion based on several reasons, one of which being an assumption that men are physically stronger in DA world because they appear more muscular and women still seem to have pregnancy, which would have led to a classic role division of men hunting and women childcaring in back in cave ages, which would eventually have led to patriachism forming.

I hope we move on to discuss Alistair and Anora. I would have, if I weren't being called a sexist, prejudiced, and a troll.

Modifié par IntoTheDarkness, 23 décembre 2012 - 12:36 .

[Monica21]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

<snip>

The problem you're running into is that there simply haven't been enough female war time rulers to make an adequate case against their capability, so your argument is, by itself a logical fallacy. There have been some extraordinary female wartime rulers and those women can't be overlooked or ignored as mere aberrations.

As for Alistair and Anora, the wartime ruler bit cancels itself out, as Anora does exactly what Alistair does. In fact, if you choose to marry Alistair and Anora, it's Anora who leads the troops into battle. With regard to politics and governance, Anora is, in my opinion, far better. I'd have to look at the ending slides for separate rulers to be certain, but I remember being impressed by Anora much more than I was Alistair, who seems to do nothing but meander about Ferelden making himself "the people's king" or something. The best option (outside of a male Cousland marrying Anora) is to marry Alistair and Anora. Anora and a hardened Alistair work best together and bring out the best leadership traits of each other.

[IntoTheDarkness]

Monica21 wrote...

The problem you're running into is that there simply haven't been enough female war time rulers to make an adequate case against their capability, so your argument is, by itself a logical fallacy. There have been some extraordinary female wartime rulers and those women can't be overlooked or ignored as mere aberrations.

..........snip.............

The social prejudice against women in the past makes it harder for them to operate as effectively as their counterpart men would do, let alone becoming as competant as men becuase in most cases they did not recieve as much education. Is it that hard to understand? I think you are the one making logical fallacies here. You did not give any proofs as to how a woman can *overcome* these social prejudices and people percieving her as a lesser ruler. These restrictions are also reasons why there have not been many women rulers in the first place, so of course a woman is less fit to rule a nation than the man of the same capabiliity in the past.

You can't and shouldn't argue against a fact. I didn't say that men are innately better at ruling; that will be controversial. However, saying that women are unfit to rule *under* social disadvanges is stating the obvious like you can't run while people are pulling your legs. Calling me extremely biased for this was a case of extreme dyslexia.

A few days ago a female candidate won the presidency in South Korea. If there are no social prejudices or restrictions against women, a female ruler will be as good as her abilities allow her to be. Likewise, if there are as many female soldiers as male soldiers in the army, then a female ruler in war will be as effective as a male ruler in war because she will have advantages at nomination and morale elevation. However, since that had not been the case in the actuallities until recently, women were less fit to rule or lead an army despite few exceptions by extraordinary individuals.

Whether or not the same goes for DA:O is debatable. And I already admitted that for DA:O my assumption was based on a premise that may be wrong, as there seem to be many women soldiers serving in the king's army in Ostagar.

Modifié par IntoTheDarkness, 23 décembre 2012 - 02:29 .

[gneisenau556]

The thing is, I'm not quite sure how exactly Feralden is run poltically, so it is hard to judge. I mean sure Alistar is inexperienced, but the USA gets an inexperienced leader every 8 years, and they do fine.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Yeah, but we're already a powerhouse. We can afford to have an inexperienced leader from time to time. Ferelden is not the strongest nation out there, and the strongest nation out there shares a border with them, and there's reason to believe, at least from the plot of DA:O to the plot of DA2, that there will be attempts at taking it back.

Besides, our inexperienced leaders tend to have been senators or governors before their time as president. Alistair doesn't have that either.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 23 décembre 2012 - 03:20 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Ferretinabun wrote...

IntoTheDarkness would have a point if he were talking about real life. Female monarchs always had a much tougher time of it than their male counterparts. If they were strong rulers, then they were seen as unwomanly: improper, monstrous, unnatural. If they were submissive as a proper woman should be, they were seen as weak rulers.

Then there is the matter of marriage. A king could marry whoever he liked because the wife was supposed to be subordinate. But what was a queen regnant to do? If she married one of her own countrymen, he would be both her subject (thus supposedly her inferior) and her husband (thus supposedly her superior). Was she then only to choose kings of other countries - men whose status matched her own? If nothing else, foreign spouses to monarchs were rarely popular with the chattering classes.

This does, of course, reflect nothing on the actual ability of women to rule, and much more on the general sexist attitudes and social conventions of ages past. And Ferelden, though given a medieval setting, does seem a place with thoroughly modern sensibilites in terms of race, sexuality and gender equality.

Given all that, and to answer OP's question, I think Anora makes the superior ruler. Doing what's best for the good of the nation, however unsavory, is not the same as being popular or noble. Politics generally tends to be a shady, morally murky world, and I don't think it would be long before Alistair would be manipulated into being someone's puppet. Anora knows how to handle herself.

Anora was her father and Arl Howe's puppet for the entirety of the war. She was nominally the ruler of the country, but did nothing while her father and his rapacious associates ruined the realm. That, right there, shows that Anora would not be a great ruler. Being ruthless and being willing to do unsavory things doesn't automatically make you a superior ruler. Howe and Loghain did plenty of unsavory things that ended up bankrupting and further endangering an already imperiled nation. Both were ruthless, and neither can be called a great ruler. She does not know how to handle herself.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I initially did not want to go in, as ripping the same arguments apart for the bizzilionth time sounded like a boring prospect. But I'm feeling generous with holiday spirit and nostalgic, so thought I'll indulge for a moment.

IntoTheDarkness wrote...
1. Male ruler is more fit in a state of war. Anora will not lead an army in a battle.

Such an argument cannot be presented as a fact based on our history, for the major reason that women were most of the time barred from military service let alone leadership. But there has been a quite a number of war time female leaders in our own history, like Cahena, Boudica, Hind bint Utbah, Joan of Arc and many many others. You'd be surprised how many examples we have.

But the important part is that this argument is not applicable in Thedas. Gender politics there is not identical or even similar to gender politics in the medieval era (which itself was very varied depending on region). Hence you have female soldiers, warriors, some even high ranking like Cauthrien, without anyone making a fuss of it. Women in Thedas, at least Ferelden, were much more integrated into the military than our own history.

And some of the most important military leaders we know of in Thedas were women. We had Genevieve who was a warden commander. We have Lady Shayna, who was instrumental in Calenhad's rise to power, being a warrior and commander of renown (check codices). We have Sophia Dryden, who led the wardens in a coup. We have Lady Moira who took the reins after her incompetent father nearly led the resistance to the ground, rekindling the rebellion against Orlais thanks to her leadership. We have Meredith, who led the Templars against Viscount Threnhold, and was commander to a professional military order. And of course, we have Andraste herself who brought the Tevinter imperium to its knees by force of arms.

So the argument that men are more qualified or percieved to be more qualified in military leadership is not applicable in Thedas and is therefore utterly irrelevent.

But I'll even go further and say it's doubly irrelevent. Yes, it is true that soldiers are more likely to fight bravely if inspired by their commander. But it would be fallacious and whimsical to believe that commanders fought on the frontlines all the time. The vast vast majority of the time had generals sit at the back and do what they were supposed to do - plan and coordinate the army.

In the rare events where they joined the fray, it was at the Schwerpunkt. The moment or area in a battle that was decisive. So Alexander's charge at Guagamela or Caesar's participation at the battle of Alesia were during critical phases where the troops needed that push. But these commanders did not fight regularily, their job was to command.

Now let me ask you. Is there any evidence that Alistair had any training in tactics and strategies? I am willing to concede that as a Templar initiate (though he did not become a full Templar), he may have had some grasp over group tactics. But there is as much evidence, which is to say none, that he is more versed in military strategy and tactics than Anora. So, your argument is doubly irrelevent.

Why am I still talking about this point? Because I want to kill its "debatable" status as claimed by the OP, and show that it's wrong and impertinent.

2. Alistair lacks cunning, but he does not cheat orlie. A ruler can cheat and lie, as long as those are done in secret.
Anora
openly betrays the warden putting her own safety above concerns for her
allies which is a trait her subjects and feudal lords won't appreicate.

I don't know about you, but when someone puts on a disguise, I tend to think it's because they want to avoid being caught. It also kinda helped that she told you so and suspects that Loghain is after her.
So she turns on the Warden, only if the warden is stupid enough to expose her presence.

And she does not betray the warden unless he / she tells her  that Loghain will die. And note that Anora does not promise to support you in that event, thus "betrayal" never happened. I don't see why Anora would be blamed, if the Warden is an idiot who doesn't grab the perfect opportunity to lie and turn on her.

3. Alistair is a
grey wardon. He is a better ruler both as a symbol and practical warrior
to end the blight which is the largest threat in Ferelden. Orlaisian
Empire could invade Ferelden ensueing from the blight, and Alistair will
deal with war better than Anora.

The Warden, who is actually more of the leader around here, is a Grey Warden, thus Alistair is not needed.  Your second point is doubly irrelevent as demonstrated earlier.

4.
It can be argued that Alistair doens't have a backbone, with him
deffering decisions to the warden and all. But according to the
darkspawn chronicle, it is him who unites Ferelden to fight the blight
if the warden had died in the joining. Furthermore, Uber-smartness is
not necessary for a good ruler. Decision making is much more important,
and Anora is a counter-example of a good decision maker when she proved
to be a wimp in front of her father. As far as I know, she will be more
credulous if advices from her court concern her own benefits.

A. he failed. B. it's a stupid DLC not meant to be taken as canon or meaning anything

As for "being a wimp" in front of her father. Loghain held control over the army, with Howe controlling Amaranthine, Highever and Denerim. There is not much she could have done, lest she'd make the civil war even worse (esp since Loghain was actually winning). Furthermore, throughout most of the game, she supported Loghain or saw he was the lesser of several evils (like the idiotic bannorn).

5. King is a
life-long position. One does not need to be accustomed with
court-affair or political sense to be a good king as long as he can
learn, especially in times of war in which uniting his subjects is more
important than scheming in the back. Alistair does not mind sacrificing
himself for the greater good. Anora will probably flee Denerim in
Darkspawn invasion. Let's just say that a fleeing monarch is much, much
worse than a dead monarch in war.

Wait what? A king does not have to be accustomed in court politics or have political sense? What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

The only way Alistair can work is for someone to actually do his work, aka Eamon or the Warden. And I for one consider the idea of a weak monarch / strong chancellor to be very dangerous in a political context such as Ferelden, where nobles are very likely to fight to control said weakling. Our own history, since you're fond of referencing it, is full of examples on how this in the long run can be disastrous.

Also, a king "sacrificing himself for the greater good", with no heir is not that good an idea. King =/= hero.
A leader is far more valuable alive, if he / she can keep on leading.


We only have the epilogue slides to judge both rulers. And I think it's self-evident that Anora's career, though not without flaws, is the better long term prospect for Ferelden than Alistair's even when hardened (who remains as immature and self-centered as he always was).

As for the reasons in-game, after spending 90% of the game with Alistair, I've come to the self-evident conclusion that he's not fit, except for being a figurehead with other people actually ruling.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 décembre 2012 - 06:06 .

[Monica21]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I initially did not want to go in, as ripping the same arguments apart for the bizzilionth time sounded like a boring prospect. But I'm feeling generous with holiday spirit and nostalgic, so thought I'll indulge for a moment.

IntoTheDarkness wrote...
1. Male ruler is more fit in a state of war. Anora will not lead an army in a battle.

Such an argument cannot be presented as a fact based on our history, for the major reason that women were most of the time barred from military service let alone leadership. But there has been a quite a number of war time female leaders in our own history, like Cahena, Boudica, Hind bint Utbah, Joan of Arc and many many others. You'd be surprised how many examples we have.

But the important part is that this argument is not applicable in Thedas. Gender politics there is not identical or even similar to gender politics in the medieval era (which itself was very varied depending on region). Hence you have female soldiers, warriors, some even high ranking like Cauthrien, without anyone making a fuss of it. Women in Thedas, at least Ferelden, were much more integrated into the military than our own history.

And some of the most important military leaders we know of in Thedas were women. We had Genevieve who was a warden commander. We have Lady Shayna, who was instrumental in Calenhad's rise to power, being a warrior and commander of renown (check codices). We have Sophia Dryden, who led the wardens in a coup. We have Lady Moira who took the reins after her incompetent father nearly led the resistance to the ground, rekindling the rebellion against Orlais thanks to her leadership. We have Meredith, who led the Templars against Viscount Threnhold, and was commander to a professional military order. And of course, we have Andraste herself who brought the Tevinter imperium to its knees by force of arms.

So the argument that men are more qualified or percieved to be more qualified in military leadership is not applicable in Thedas and is therefore utterly irrelevent.

But I'll even go further and say it's doubly irrelevent. Yes, it is true that soldiers are more likely to fight bravely if inspired by their commander. But it would be fallacious and whimsical to believe that commanders fought on the frontlines all the time. The vast vast majority of the time had generals sit at the back and do what they were supposed to do - plan and coordinate the army.

In the rare events where they joined the fray, it was at the Schwerpunkt. The moment or area in a battle that was decisive. So Alexander's charge at Guagamela or Caesar's participation at the battle of Alesia were during critical phases where the troops needed that push. But these commanders did not fight regularily, their job was to command.

Now let me ask you. Is there any evidence that Alistair had any training in tactics and strategies? I am willing to concede that as a Templar initiate (though he did not become a full Templar), he may have had some grasp over group tactics. But there is as much evidence, which is to say none, that he is more versed in military strategy and tactics than Anora. So, your argument is doubly irrelevent.

Why am I still talking about this point? Because I want to kill its "debatable" status as claimed by the OP, and show that it's wrong and impertinent.

2. Alistair lacks cunning, but he does not cheat orlie. A ruler can cheat and lie, as long as those are done in secret.
Anora
openly betrays the warden putting her own safety above concerns for her
allies which is a trait her subjects and feudal lords won't appreicate.

I don't know about you, but when someone puts on a disguise, I tend to think it's because they want to avoid being caught. It also kinda helped that she told you so and suspects that Loghain is after her.
So she turns on the Warden, only if the warden is stupid enough to expose her presence.

And she does not betray the warden unless he / she tells her  that Loghain will die. And note that Anora does not promise to support you in that event, thus "betrayal" never happened. I don't see why Anora would be blamed, if the Warden is an idiot who doesn't grab the perfect opportunity to lie and turn on her.

3. Alistair is a
grey wardon. He is a better ruler both as a symbol and practical warrior
to end the blight which is the largest threat in Ferelden. Orlaisian
Empire could invade Ferelden ensueing from the blight, and Alistair will
deal with war better than Anora.

The Warden, who is actually more of the leader around here, is a Grey Warden, thus Alistair is not needed.  Your second point is doubly irrelevent as demonstrated earlier.

4.
It can be argued that Alistair doens't have a backbone, with him
deffering decisions to the warden and all. But according to the
darkspawn chronicle, it is him who unites Ferelden to fight the blight
if the warden had died in the joining. Furthermore, Uber-smartness is
not necessary for a good ruler. Decision making is much more important,
and Anora is a counter-example of a good decision maker when she proved
to be a wimp in front of her father. As far as I know, she will be more
credulous if advices from her court concern her own benefits.

A. he failed. B. it's a stupid DLC not meant to be taken as canon or meaning anything

As for "being a wimp" in front of her father. Loghain held control over the army, with Howe controlling Amaranthine, Highever and Denerim. There is not much she could have done, lest she'd make the civil war even worse (esp since Loghain was actually winning). Furthermore, throughout most of the game, she supported Loghain or saw he was the lesser of several evils (like the idiotic bannorn).

5. King is a
life-long position. One does not need to be accustomed with
court-affair or political sense to be a good king as long as he can
learn, especially in times of war in which uniting his subjects is more
important than scheming in the back. Alistair does not mind sacrificing
himself for the greater good. Anora will probably flee Denerim in
Darkspawn invasion. Let's just say that a fleeing monarch is much, much
worse than a dead monarch in war.

Wait what? A king does not have to be accustomed in court politics or have political sense? What kind of fantasy world do you live in?

The only way Alistair can work is for someone to actually do his work, aka Eamon or the Warden. And I for one consider the idea of a weak monarch / strong chancellor to be very dangerous in a political context such as Ferelden, where nobles are very likely to fight to control said weakling. Our own history, since you're fond of referencing it, is full of examples on how this in the long run can be disastrous.

Also, a king "sacrificing himself for the greater good", with no heir is not that good an idea. King =/= hero.
A leader is far more valuable alive, if he / she can keep on leading.


We only have the epilogue slides to judge both rulers. And I think it's self-evident that Anora's career, though not without flaws, is the better long term prospect for Ferelden than Alistair's even when hardened (who remains as immature and self-centered as he always was).

As for the reasons in-game, after spending 90% of the game with Alistair, I've come to the self-evident conclusion that he's not fit, except for being a figurehead with other people actually ruling.

This. All of this. (And I'm keeping the quotes because I think it's a really good response.) +1,000,000

I'm always relieved when I see KoP has posted, because it's usually everything I want to say but said far, far better.

Modifié par Monica21, 24 décembre 2012 - 01:25 .

[PrinceLionheart]

Objectively, Anora would make the better ruler.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Anora has more technical qualifications, but honestly? I simply don't trust her not to pull a Loghain. I'm not comfortable with the choices she makes and the lengths she's willing to go to, and I worry about what she'd do if handed power.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Hello, it's me again.

One of those "technical qualifications" involves having made all the decisions for... about five years, iirc. As for "pulling a Loghain?" If by that you mean abandoning an ally, sometimes it's necessary. If people had known to do that when an ally becomes a toxic asset, WWI might have been avoided.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 28 décembre 2012 - 03:45 .

[Monica21]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Anora has more technical qualifications, but honestly? I simply don't trust her not to pull a Loghain. I'm not comfortable with the choices she makes and the lengths she's willing to go to, and I worry about what she'd do if handed power.

What choices are you not comfortable with? Confronting her father about the manner of her husband's death? The fact that she doesn't want you to tell anyone she's captive in Howe's residence? At the Landsmeet the only thing she does is argue against her father's regency and for her own rule. It's hard to deny her argument for herself, given that she's been the one ruling since she married Cailan.

[gneisenau556]

I don't know if we can say objectively who is better, but Anora is pretty progressive in that she creates a learning institution, willing to grant freedom to mages, give the city elves representation, though she does kinda screw her family over if she grants the warden the Teryn of Gwaren (even if Loghain lives).

Although to be fair she never really says any of this ingame...