You know, I always had a little bit of an issue with the Harrowmont vs. Bhelen dynamic --- okay, a large issue, because I always say Bhelen's a hack and the devs have really been trying to force the idea that he's the best leader to us You know, I always had a little bit of an issue with the Harrowmont vs. Bhelen dynamic --- okay, a large issue, because I always say Bhelen's a hack and the devs have really been trying to force the idea that he's the best leader to us
-- but I feel like even in Origins the game tried to really push you towards Bhelen being right with very little ambiguity in the scenario (even if Bhelen's method of getting the crown would realistically create more problems for him, but that's never addressed), even going so far as to make Harrowmont seem not just more of the same old, same old traditionalism but full-on stupid.
Like the isolationist policy he ended up having in the epilogue. Despite the fact that after he's crowned the surface merchants say the gates are open and they can trade again inside the city. So it kinda seemed to come out of nowhere (though they haven't held to it). Since Inquisition has him trading with Gaspard, I do wonder why he didn't use the money to buy foodstuffz from the surface merchants (I have my suspicions, but I'm bitter).
Or even how in Inquisition Bioware reverses what the epilogues originally had. Originally, Bhelen was pressing for more Golems but Branka refused, wherein he laid siege to the place. In contrast, Harrowmont didn't give Branka more Dwarves for Golems, which had her decide to raid the surface and then Orzammar had to face a war because of her stupid actions.
In Inquisition? Completely reversed. Bhelen is now the one not giving Branka any more resources while Harrowmont is giving her more and more.
That bothers me. They didn't go with Traditionalism vs. Reformation but more like "Bad vs. Good". And it's why I say it seems like Bioware is kissing Bhelen's ass, to put it bluntly. =/. I would've preferred it to simply be "More of the same" vs. "A New Beginning" rather then "Downfall of the Dwarves" vs. "The right choice" (this is a problem with Origins itself to be honest. The Circle of Magi quest has no repercussions if you save them, as another example). It's still clear that Harrowmont would be the wrong choice, but it wouldn't be black and white about it.
His views on the casteless and how he panders to the Assembly I don't mind. Very in line with who Harrowmont is and enough of a reason to feel he's not a good ruler (long-term catering to the Assembly creates problems). It's just the other stuff that seemingly either comes out of nowhere or is contradicting whatever else happened that we were told. I've always maintained he's maybe an ok-ish king at best for peace-time but even so... I dunno. Perhaps I just let my hatred of Bhelen and me seeing flaws in his rise to power color my perspective just a bit too much.
Which don't get me wrong, I can get behind Bhelen being the better candidate (if you're not a DN that is. Or a DC). Dwarves need reform, after all. I just think it wasn't presented very well when you look at it under a microscope and examine each character truly. Worse still when IIRC Aeducan is named Harrowmont's heir? And yet somehow you can't even get the throne in his "poisoned" ending?
But as is well known, I'm bitter. VERY VERY bitter lol.