19 réponses à ce sujet

[ct2651]

I don't know for you people, but this game is done by canadian at a period where politics in this country as many link to the politics of orzammar.

So let's start with Belen. He want diminishing the gap between the casts, so the poor will be less poor. He want to open the bondaries of the country to the other race. That sound quite like a liberal politics in Canada.
But Belen has also done many big error like killing people and is not a good leader at all.
At that time in Canada, the liberal party has the same problems, they have'nt have any good leader and we have discover some big errors that have done by the party in the last years.

On the other side, harrowmount is a good guy but his ideas are completetly out of time. Many of his ideas are conservator with what is already in place. What people say when you finish the game is the fact that these conservator ideas finish to destroy all economy in the country and they are more and more poor people in it.


Now, is orzammar is some kind of a warning for not voting for a conservator party. It seems to me like it because the ending with harrowmount is way more dramatic and sad than the one with Belen. It seems also that even if a lyberal party do many errors, these errors are'nt as bad as the ideas behind a conservator party.

Now, it's your turn to discuss.

[cJohnOne]

Didn't Belen shut down the assembly? That's not very democratic. I prefer democracy over Monarchy. Go Harrowmount!

Modifié par cJohnOne, 28 avril 2013 - 05:25 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

In what way is the Assembly a democracy?

[cJohnOne]

Oligarchy? the house of lords?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Oligarchy is not Democracy. The House of Lords by itself is not democracy either. The British system as a whole is, because the people are adequately represented by the House Of Commons.

Remember Denek Helmi? The guy who said that most commoners would make okay deshyrs if given the chance, and that if the Ancestors really are involved with Provings there's no need to limit it to nobles? His suggestions, if followed, would make Orzammar a democracy. But there is no option that does this. You're left picking between a monarchy and an oligarchy, which would be little to choose except that Bhelen does a better job than the horde of mini-Bhelens.

[cJohnOne]

I think having an Assembly is a step up from the whims of the Monarchy and it fits the Dwarves caste society.

I think the Magna Carta was imposed on the King in England.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Except that it results in caste restrictions tightening, and the poor being more screwed than they were before instead of less so. This is to say nothing of Bhelen's increased trade and allowing casteless into the army. If anything, the monarchy is a step up from the Assembly.

And yes, the Magna Carta was imposed on the king. By the nobles. For the nobles. If it was just a choice between oligarchy and monarchy, it would be pretty up in the air as to which was a better choice. Except that one has better results where Orzammar is concerned.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 28 avril 2013 - 05:45 .

[ejoslin]

Sure, an ineffective rule by the very richest is so much better for most than a monarchy.

Orzammar was heading downhill quickly. Centuries of war, a ruling class that did nothing but further its own wealth, and sharply declining reproductive rates were destroying Orzammar. If anything, a monarch able to break through and utilize and make productive a large part of the citizen base is far better than an assembly who refuses to do so and instead condemns a huge part of the society to an existence that is so low, it can't even be called the fringes.

Yay Harrowmont. Ummm, yeh. Disagree strongly.

[cJohnOne]

All goverments exclude somebody in a Demoracy you exclude half the population in a way.

If the assembly makes the laws then the monarchy is just like a permanet president. To do aways with the assembly is a step toward tyranny.

[Blazomancer]

At least in a democracy everybody above a certain age get to vote. Well, at least in my country that is. Every individual has even the right to information on government policies.

Now, I'm quite sure the only vote a casteless dwarf get to cast is the stamp on their face - the brand. What would it matter to an individual from the lowest strata of the society whether there's an assembly or not, when that person don't even have a voice in the first place.

[ejoslin]

Orzammar is by no means a democracy, though. And Harrowmont most certainly would not support anything other than the current system. What Bhelen gives the casteless is something other than starvation and crime -- he allows them to be recognized as humans as well.

And there's already tyranny in Orzammar. Ever play the DN origin? You can kill whomever you want, and you don't even have to dirty your hands doing so -- Gorim will do it for you. No one bats an eye.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

cJohnOne wrote...

All goverments exclude somebody in a Demoracy you exclude half the population in a way.

You mean the below age half? They're not permanently excluded. Do you mean felons? I would see that change too, actually. Do you mean people who weren't born to the very small right class? If you do, then what you mean isn't democracy.

Nor does this work as a support for your argument. Just because all governments exclude somebody doesn't make exclusion right.

If the assembly makes the laws then the monarchy is just like a permanet president. To do aways with the assembly is a step toward tyranny.

That's why you don't understand why I think there's little to choose; you don't recognize that Orzammar is already tyrannical.

The guards are allowed to break a criminal's kneecaps and force her to sit in dung until infection sets in. Merchants are allowed to rip out a brand's teeth and cut his or her hair, all by force.  The casteless are not allowed to have any jobs except the very worst of scut work and membership in the Legion of the Dead, which is essentially suicide to join. Even the castes are not allowed to do anything except what their caste is open to, competence be damned. The nobles are allowed to kill basically anyone. This is the system the Assembly sets forth. Bhelen gives them new freedoms, in exchange for joining the regular army that risks death rather than entails it. He also loosens the restrictions that the other castes work under. You can argue all you want that oligarchy in general entails more freedom than monarchy in general, but with these two, the monarchy really is more free.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 28 avril 2013 - 07:15 .

[cJohnOne]

I think Monarchs get big heads and you have to impose rights on them or at least most of them especially Bhelen, ha,ha.



But that is really meta-gaming so I still put Bhelen as King if I'm not a Dwarf Noble that is.

Modifié par cJohnOne, 28 avril 2013 - 07:22 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

You don't think Oligarchies have the same problem?

[KnightofPhoenix]

As someone who is knowledgeable of Canadian politics, I'll just say no.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

As someone who is knowledgeable of Canadian politics, I'll just say no.

As someone who has no idea what's going on in Canada, did you mean the OP or my post right above yours?

[ct2651]

He say no to me...

But my point is that at that time, we were just out of a big corruption from the liberals...
But putting corruption in an already complex scenario in the game was maybe too much.
So in place of corruption, they put a caracter that have done another kind of stupid or bad action.

that my point, yeah, probably i try too much to think about a meaning, but the fact is this is a Bioware canadian game done just after we found out about corruption in the liberal party.

[VampireSoap]

I mean, Noble Republic?...Isn't that what the Assembly is?

[ct2651]

VampireSoap wrote...

I mean, Noble Republic?...Isn't that what the Assembly is?

I think that's exactly what people have said, they just explain what it was.

[Bhryaen]

In general- just as a check on absolute power- it's better to have oligarchy than monarchy, though it's not as if the King of Orzammar rules equally with the Assembly- i.e., the same legal standing- so it's not exactly an oligarchy as much as a parliamentary monarchy. The Monarch is elected through the Assembly- and has to deal with the "noble" schemers which comprise it- but stands above it otherwise. The Assembly nobles are easier to dispatch than monarchs... unless you're a monarch's son, of course... And if the King were of equal standing, Orzammar would not be at a standstill when our Warden first arrives. Plenty of Assembly folks still about to take care of Orzammar's rule.

As to whether Bhelen Aeducan and Stephen Harper are intended as equivalents, I'd presume not, but who knows? Bhelen is essentially a Bonapartist leader- for an unusually strong central govt based on a populist message- while Harper is a fairly typical politician (more like Harrowmont in being conservative) and nowadays most politicians play some populist card, but Harper doesn't stand out as such. And corruption has been a repeated (and usually correct) charge against most leaders regardless of the administration (or nation). And there's no casteless in Canada to be "liberated," nor a caste system, nor... Well, I'm just not really seeing any connection really, but as I said, I wouldn't know...

The thing about the "monarchy v oligarchy" argument is that since both are based on the arbitrary power of a group (of one or more constituents), their effectiveness will be limited to the effectiveness of the individuals involved. A Bhelen-progressive Assembly could be effective against a Harrowmont-conservative King (not a Bhelen-like Assembly, mind you, but one which espouses the political agenda of Bhelen). DAO has the opposite scenario, but it could just as well be the other way round. So in this fictional case (in which the Assembly appears overwhelmingly stacked with scoundrels, Denek Helmi aside) it's arguably better to support the monarchy over an oligarchy, but it easily becomes relative. Better to balance central power with genuine rule by the entire population- IMHO...

Since fundamental social change is required for Orzammar's long-term sustainability, Bhelen does demonstrably fulfill an effective role in Orzammar's history as an agent of such change while Harrowmont demonstrably plays a stagnant (or rampantly conservative) role in Orzammar's history, hampering or crippling its capacity to adapt. This isn't to say Bhelen's peachy keen as a leader for it: one thing Bhelen doesn't change is the tendency of Orzammar leadership to resort to backhanded deals and cutthroat machiavellianism to accomplish desired goals. And Bhelen is no voice of democracy: he likes his monarch status just fine, regardless of the quality of monarch that would follow him...

Modifié par Bhryaen, 29 avril 2013 - 05:23 .