56 réponses à ce sujet

[OldMan91]

Bhelen tries to conquer the surface? When does that happen? For me that was never the case.



In general, i'd go for Bhelen. Always.



And it's not as if the assembly is really a democratic institution in any way.

[Fault Girl]

It's the case of who's the lesser evil? I always go with Harroment, but my next playthrough im', sticking with Bhelen.

[fongiel24]

I don't remember anything in the epilogue mentioning Bhelen trying to conquer the surface.



I think the decisions in Orzammar, both the politics and the Anvil, really showed the ugly side of the Wardens' "whatever it takes" mentality. If you take the "moral" path and install an honourable king and destroy the Anvil, Orzammar is significantly weakened, possibly even crippled permanently. As a Warden, weakening Orzammar is unacceptable because having seen the Deep Roads, you should realize that without the dwarves, the surface would be swarming with darkspawn even between Blights. As the Legion of the Dead legionnaire says, "Your nightmare is our everyday". If you're fulfilling your duty as a Grey Warden to do whatever it takes to defeat the darkspawn, choosing Bhelen as king and preserving the Anvil are the "right" decisions, even if they are "immoral" choices.



If you're trying to do what is best for the people of Orzammar, Bhelen is still the best choice. Bhelen may be a tyrant, but under Harrowmont Orzammar falls into even further decline. Considering the dwarves were barely holding on even before Endrin's death, Harrowmont is obviously a disastrous king. Even if Bhelen becomes a dwarven Stalin, this is a far better outcome than having darkspawn overrun the last dwarven city in the world. The rationale behind preserving the Anvil is the same. Without golems, the best the dwarves can hope to do is hold off the darkspawn for as long as they can. With the golems, they actually have a chance to take the fight to the darkspawn. Even if people have to die to make golems, possibly even involuntarily, isn't it better that a few hundred dwarves become golems than Orzammar inevitably dwindling away?

[SusanStoHelit]

fongiel24 wrote...

this is a far better outcome than having darkspawn overrun the last dwarven city in the world

While I agree with some of what you said, I disagree with quite a bit of it too. But I have a question for you and have clipped out the relevant part of your post. Have you ever heard of Kal Sharok? Orzammar is not the last dwarven city in the world.

[fongiel24]

My mistake, I forgot about Kal Sharok. As far as I know though, Orzammar is the wealthier and more powerful of the two, as well as being the only one connected to the surface. In any case, losing Orzammar or having it decline isn't a good thing for the dwarves or the surface and that's the impression I got of what happens when Harrowmont becomes king. That's my 2 cents anyways

[asaiasai]

Behlen is a liar and a cheat, Harromont is weak i wish it was possible to cull everybody and put Oghren in charge. As for what i think of the politics in Orzamar, i can see the similarities in todays American government, where nothing will get done because both sides are too concerned with staying on message than doing what is right. So while this happens Rome burns.



Asai

[Sabriana]

A weak leader has proven to be a disaster for his people on many occasions

As far as the papers go, and the implied forgery, I can only say, what's worse: proven bribary, or unproven forgery.

My PC knows the bribary did happen. My PC doesn't know if the shaper is really biased (she knows nothing about dwarven family ties), or if he is unbiased. I'm leaning strongly toward forgery in fact, but what's the difference? Bribary on one side, forgery to undo the bribary on the other. Neither is a 'nice' thing to do.

Bhelen refuses to see the PC until she proves her support

Harromond refuses to see the PC because he's afraid. And, as Zevran points out, how can one expect to lead a nation, when one can't even lead their own servants.

I did hedge my bets though, and sought out the Harromond fighters. It was incredibly easy to find a solution to their problems. That told me that Harromond is not a good leader, he can't even lead his own fighters. Bad thing for a King who has to lead armies.

[draxynnus]

Sabriana wrote...

A weak leader has proven to be a disaster for his people on many occasions
As far as the papers go, and the implied forgery, I can only say, what's worse: proven bribary, or unproven forgery.
My PC knows the bribary did happen. My PC doesn't know if the shaper is really biased (she knows nothing about dwarven family ties), or if he is unbiased. I'm leaning strongly toward forgery in fact, but what's the difference? Bribary on one side, forgery to undo the bribary on the other. Neither is a 'nice' thing to do.
Bhelen refuses to see the PC until she proves her support
Harromond refuses to see the PC because he's afraid. And, as Zevran points out, how can one expect to lead a nation, when one can't even lead their own servants.
I did hedge my bets though, and sought out the Harromond fighters. It was incredibly easy to find a solution to their problems. That told me that Harromond is not a good leader, he can't even lead his own fighters. Bad thing for a King who has to lead armies.

Being facetious: Are you sure he didn't? What do you think he was doing when he asked you to investigate (even through an intermediary)?

That said, you've probably hit the nail on the head there - the main difference between Harrowmont and Bhelen (if your PC isn't a dwarf) is that Bhelen is the more ruthless of the two. This means he can do more with the position, but also that he is going to do more with the position, and that will include "mercilessly crushing all opposition".

That said, having thought on what historical figure Bhelen is closest to and having flirted with less flattering comparisons, I think I have figured out who he may be closest to - the various Roman and Byzantine emperors who managed to cut through the political crud and lead their countries into a resurgence. He's not a nice person, but there is certainly some basis to the argument that he may be the leader Orzammar needs. This won't stop my characters from making decisions according to their own moral compasses, however - the more idealistic ones will be more willing to give Harrowmont the benefit of the doubt regardless. After all, they haven't read the Epilogue!

Modifié par draxynnus, 18 janvier 2010 - 01:53 .

[FlintlockJazz]

LightSabres wrote...

If you take the "papers" that Vartag gives you (to show Dace and Helmi) to the shaperate then the main guy in there will tell you that they have been altered.

Ah, but isn't the Shaperate Harrowmont's cousin twice removed via marriage and step-siblings, which makes the Shaperate biased?  At least, that's what Bhelen's man said when he first gave me the notes, and he would never lie...

[FlintlockJazz]

Actually, one thought that crosses my mind: what makes some people so sure that Bhelen is motivated purely by self-interest? Perhaps it is more a case that he genuinely wants to save his country, and see's himself as the only person capable of doing so, and is willing to do what he considers 'necessary' in order to do so: removal of his eldest brother who is clearly a bad leader and the second eldest who, regardless of their capability, was in the way of him saving his country, removal of a king who, despite being popular, had not really done anything to deal with the long-term problems facing Orzammer, and pulling of Orzammer kicking and screaming into the modern age in order to restore it. Of course, he probably also desires the power for power's sake, but I reckon there is a very strong possibility that there is also the desire to save Orzammer there too.

If you had the choice to save your homeland from falling but in so doing you needed to do 'necessary' things, would you take it? Most wouldn't, which in a way makes Bhelen a hero, though not a very nice one...

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 18 janvier 2010 - 02:20 .

[InvaderErl]

Sabriana wrote...

A weak leader has proven to be a disaster for his people on many occasions
As far as the papers go, and the implied forgery, I can only say, what's worse: proven bribary, or unproven forgery.
My PC knows the bribary did happen. My PC doesn't know if the shaper is really biased (she knows nothing about dwarven family ties), or if he is unbiased. I'm leaning strongly toward forgery in fact, but what's the difference? Bribary on one side, forgery to undo the bribary on the other. Neither is a 'nice' thing to do.
Bhelen refuses to see the PC until she proves her support
Harromond refuses to see the PC because he's afraid. And, as Zevran points out, how can one expect to lead a nation, when one can't even lead their own servants.
I did hedge my bets though, and sought out the Harromond fighters. It was incredibly easy to find a solution to their problems. That told me that Harromond is not a good leader, he can't even lead his own fighters. Bad thing for a King who has to lead armies.

Is that act of bribary illegal in Dwarven politics? It sounded like SOP to me.

[Sabriana]

@ InvaderErl



My PC was a human mage. To her, bribery and forgery are on equal footing. Neither is quite above board. Technically, the forgery was just a tool to nullify the bribery.

See, in that instance Harromond and Bhelen came out 1:1

That's how my mage tried to ascertain the best choice. Listening to everybody and listing plus and minus. Bhelen came out (very) slightly ahead of Harrowmond, but she had nothing else to go by.

She hadn't read the epilogues, you see

[AndreaDraco]

Many interesting responses here.



See, I really have mixed feelings about Orzammar plot-line. While I enthusiastically appreciate the moral ambiguity that is lavished on every aspect of the dwarven politic, making this plot quest perhaps the most intriguing from a moral perspective, I also think that for a non-Dwarf character is extremely difficult to roleplay through "A Paragon of Her Kind". Yes, we have snippets of information about this candidate and that, but, for example, "Nature of the Beast" did a better job in introducing us to the main issue (vengeance), letting us see first-hand both sides before calling us for a choice.



Sure, the Anvil of the Void choice is perhaps even more pivotal - and one that can be made by every character based on their backgrounds and views -, but, while I have a pretty clear view on the subject, my poor Dalish Rogue is at a loss, first because he doesn't understand the intricacies of dwarven society and, foremost, because both candidates seem to care about the surface where he and his Clan live only side-effectly (even if it's not a word ^^).

[Solica]

Well, my city elf, having little sympathy for oppressive nobility, regarded to look upon Behlen as the pragmatic tyrant, the strong man some societies sometimes need to pull them out of the down-sliding anarchy of corrupted, gluttonous nobility/clergy. Compare Elisabeth I and Ataturk, ...and others.



Harrowmount may be the better man. Behlen, she felt, is the better choice for a ruler, for dwarfen society, at current state of affairs. But maybe, for some origin, there is a third choice

[robertthebard]

Actually, my Dwarf Noble will have no problem supporting Bhelen for the throne. He played the game masterfully, to the point of setting me up to kill my older brother. He played it like a pro, and that's what Orzammar needs. Not to mention it keeps my bloodline on the throne. I have been through there multiple times, and have never found any proof that Bhelen did in fact poison his father, however. It's just as likely that Harrowmount did, and Harrowmount was the one with him when he died. That conveniently placed note could indeed be another forgery.

[Addai]

Xetirox wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

The clues are subtle but they are there. Listen to what the criers are saying... sometimes you learn the most from the critics, such as Bhelen's openness towards the casteless. The game does seem to set up "good" characters to choose Harrowmont, however Zevran does give you good advice. Keep in mind he has seen a lot of politics and knows how such games are played. Wynne, not so much.

Pretty much what made me make my final decision. The criers may just be there to slander their opposing candidate, but neither of them are entirely lying. And what made my generally apolitical protagonist choose was when the Harrowmont crier denounced Bhelen for "planning to institute a draft," which meant he may have seriously getting prepared for war. Being as the only thing the Dwarves ever fight (besides themselves) are Darkspawn, I figured if either would be more willing to support my cause, it would be him, and his support would be better.

Yes, my first character heard that as well and it caused her to choose Bhelen.

Did anyone else take Orzammar into consideration when choosing between Alistair and Anora?  That same character was so appalled at "unhardened" Alistair's performance at the Landsmeet that she felt she had no choice but to go with Anora.

[draxynnus]

AndreaDraco wrote...

See, I really have mixed feelings about Orzammar plot-line. While I enthusiastically appreciate the moral ambiguity that is lavished on every aspect of the dwarven politic, making this plot quest perhaps the most intriguing from a moral perspective, I also think that for a non-Dwarf character is extremely difficult to roleplay through "A Paragon of Her Kind". Yes, we have snippets of information about this candidate and that, but, for example, "Nature of the Beast" did a better job in introducing us to the main issue (vengeance), letting us see first-hand both sides before calling us for a choice.

In this case, though, there is a clear "good" path to take, rather than deciding between shades of grey.

Plus, I think part of the point of the Orzammar storyline is that the Warden, if not of Dwarf origin, is supposed to be that a non-Dwarven warden is bewildered by the politics and simply doesn't have the time to sort through all the issues - Orzammar needs to be united now, and a bad king is still better than no king at all. Dwarves who pay attention to their origin stories, however, get hints as to which their character probably should support -

Spoiler

for a Dwarf Noble, it's Lord Harrowmont who suggests you seek out the Grey Wardens in the Deep Roads (and if you repay this, Harrowmont repays you in kind by making you his heir), and for a Casteless, it turns out that Bhelen is the noble your sister managed to catch.

[Mooner911]

keesio74 wrote...
I'm assuming Zevran is anti-Harrowmont and Wynne is anti-Bhelen?
If that is the case then I feel better about supporting Harrowmont because Wynne has a better moral compass.

Self righteousness never endows a person with better morals. It locks a person into an unchangable mindset incapable of accepting moral concepts and practices that emerge from any growing society.
{steps down from soapbox}
With that said, Wynne's character is clearly contradictatory and probably incorrectly conceived if you apply real-world morals to the available reactions of game characters. I.E., real-world is, at best, on the fence when considering same sex unions. But DA:O culture (including Wynne) universally accepts those unions. So it becomes very difficult for the gamer to make moral decisions that remain true to the spirit of the DA:O fantasy. In the end one must consider what your Ferelden character, with Frerlden breeding and morals, would choose.
In the end, I believe the majority of the dwarves of Orzammar would prefer the stagnation of Harrowmont's leadership regardless of the concequences. Conversations with numerous Orzammarian citizens clearly show that many are unhappy witht the status quo but they're hardly prepared for an all out revolution.
My character? I choose to support Harromont and then double-cross him. It just seems to me the dwarves would understand and accept that choice.

[Addai]

Mooner911 wrote...
In the end, I believe the majority of the dwarves of Orzammar would prefer the stagnation of Harrowmont's leadership regardless of the concequences. Conversations with numerous Orzammarian citizens clearly show that many are unhappy witht the status quo but they're hardly prepared for an all out revolution.

I don't think that's obvious from game interactions, if true.  You meet numerous dwarves both noble and commoner who express otherwise.  And from one perspective, carrying on the Aeducan line IS a consistent and traditional choice.  Granted, I haven't played the dwarf origins so others probably have more feel for the situation.

[FlintlockJazz]

LostScout wrote...

I If I had the choice, I would have put Orta on the throne.  She is young, enthusiastic, and wasn't raised amongst the noble class where they apparently think that murder, bribery, blackmail and forgery are just tools of the trade.

Sorry to say this, but if you had put Orta on the throne she would be dead within a week.  She would not have the skills needed to survive, hell Harrowmont was raised amongst the nobility and he still gets bumped off, while Bhelen has to disband the Assembly (the best thing for them, since they are so corrupt, and ironically opens the way for someone like Orta to have a chance later on).

[Sabriana]

Addai67 wrote...

Mooner911 wrote...
In the end, I believe the majority of the dwarves of Orzammar would prefer the stagnation of Harrowmont's leadership regardless of the concequences. Conversations with numerous Orzammarian citizens clearly show that many are unhappy witht the status quo but they're hardly prepared for an all out revolution.

I don't think that's obvious from game interactions, if true.  You meet numerous dwarves both noble and commoner who express otherwise.  And from one perspective, carrying on the Aeducan line IS a consistent and traditional choice.  Granted, I haven't played the dwarf origins so others probably have more feel for the situation.

I agree with Addai. My mage really tried to get a handle on the situation, and therefore talked to just about everyone. The population was split almost evenly. Neither Bhelen nor Harrowmond came out up front in her tally. What made her decide on Bhelen was a very slim advantage in points.

Zevran's assessment, Nadezda's story, and Bhelen being of Aeducan blood clinched it for her, albeit by a very small margin. And I'm sorry, I do like Wynne a lot, but I do view her judgements with more than a grain of salt.

I do believe that doing it that way, so the player will have no clear insight (non-dwarf, of course), was what the writers had in mind. It is a feature of DA:O throughout the game.

[Zavrian]

Each of the Dwarven Origins has a reason to pick a side (Noble for Harrowmont, Commoner for Bhelen). For all the other origins, it's truly a no win scenario. Harrowmont is a weak fool. Bhelen only pretends to care about the Castless, that he can manipulate them into being his powerbase. Saying Bhelen is "better" is kind of like saying that Loghain would be a "better" king than Cailan. Though I'm sure there are some on this forums who will buy that "logic", and I'm not interested in debating them. I'm a little too tired of those debates, anymore. Saying Harrowmont is better is like saying Isolde knew what she was doing.



Flip a coin or roleplay it.

[Carodej]

They both have their good and bad points. Morally, Bhelen is definitely scum, but metagaming knowledge lets you know he has the best chances to make things better for the dwarves in general- which Wardens might like in a long term sense since dwarves kill lots of dwarkspawn.



But in the end, the main reason I go Harrowmount has to do with honesty. Bhelen's a clever politician that will do whatever it takes to win. He lies frequently and gets others to lie for him and once you give him the crown I can't see why he'd actually send dwarves to help you - unless of course he can conscript an army composed of nobles that oppose him.



Harrowmount seems a bit of a fool, but incredibly honest for a dwarven politician. So despite neither candidate caring about the surface, I would expecet Harrowmount to keep his word and send troops.



Oh, and at those who don't think Bhelen poisoned his father and that it might really have been Harrowmount, I think you underestimate Bhelen's intelligence. First off, the position of king is not inherited, but voted upon - though the current king's eldest child does tend to be the most common choice. The eldest child was being groomed for king, but the second eldest (your PC if you play that origin) is far more popular and had been talked about as a better choice for the next king. So little brother Bhelen, the one that most people pay little attention to, wipes out the two most likely successors in one brilliant stroke. Bhelen's been spending months or maybe years building his support in the Assembly and gets rid of the popular middle child in a questionaby legal fashion because of the votes he bought. Now, anyone who is both smart enough and determined enough to do all that is incredibly unlikely to stop there. All his maneuvering only really pays off if he has planned to off his father as well - and remember, poisoning kings is something of a common practice in Orzammar.

[AndreaDraco]

Carodej wrote...

They both have their good and bad points. Morally, Bhelen is definitely scum, but metagaming knowledge lets you know he has the best chances to make things better for the dwarves in general- which Wardens might like in a long term sense since dwarves kill lots of dwarkspawn.

You don't have to metagame to know that Bhelen has a more modern approach to dwarven politics. The criers tell so, the merchants tell so, some casual nobles in the streets tell so. And as far as morality goes, there are few dwarven nobles in Orzammar that aren't scum