71 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Unless you are playing the Dwarf origins the warden really does not have to care who gets to be king as long as the warden gets the needed support.

If you are playing Dwarf commer you will probably want to support Bhlen. If you are playing Dwarf noble Harrowmount is your man, because he can name you as successor.



Now for role playing purposes it depends on how you are playing your character. If you are playing the goody goody you go with Harrowmount. If you are on the evil side you will probably go with Bhlen. If you are in between simply make a choice.

If you care about the dwarven race and its politics, neither one is that great of a choice.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...
Really? Bonapartism? Is there a revolution that he's moderated? Is he trying to hold the middle ground between two extreme points of view? Neither the Marxist definition of Bonapartism, nor the French definition would really fit Bhelen at all. Let's not use Bonapartism as a cipher for "progressive authoritarianism" or "enlightened despotism."

Fascist works fine. He wants to recover the old glories of Orzammar, like Branka. He seeks control of the organs of information and uses brutality in order to enforce his perspective. He combines authoritarianism and respect for monarchical tradition with a revolutionary mindset that sweeps aside the perquisites and strictures of the old ruling class.

He's a disgusting little worm. It is far better to support Harrowmont and maintain the social order.

Bonapartism as an idelogy was not created by Napoleon. It was created by his followers and admirers, especially in the mid 19th century (Napoleon III). But on the whole, yes, Bhelen is very similar to a Bonapartist, in the French meaning and not the marxist one. A right wing authoritarian leader, who cares more about merit rather than titles and nobility. And yes, he stands in the middle ground between two extremes. Between conservative elitism and democracy. Napoleon (First and thrid) helped workers get more rights, but didn't give them political power for instance. Same with Bhelen, vis a vis castless.

"He wants to recover the old glories of Orzammar, like Branka. He seeks control of the organs of information and uses brutality in order to enforce his perspective. He combines authoritarianism and respect for monarchical tradition with a revolutionary mindset that sweeps aside the perquisites and strictures of the old ruling class."

That's what Bonapartism, or any right wing dictatorship is about. That's not Fascism. Those criteria do not automatically make a system fascist. There are other requiements necessary.
Plus, Harrowmont too uses fanatics to kill the PC if the PC supports Bhelen.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 janvier 2010 - 09:19 .

[RangerSG]

Saying Napoleon "moderated" the French Revolution is a nice bit of revisionism anyway. He didn't "moderate" them. He subverted them. They overthrew the King and got an Emperor. The ideology of the Revolution had been dead since the Terror in truth.

[Emperor Iaius I]

Ranger: The Directoire was going a good bit of subversion itself. Let's point out that it was the Senate and Legislative Council that asked Napoleon to be Emperor. The reason? Consolidation: the "notables" (that is, middle-class property holders) feared losing their newfound power if the Bourbons were ever restored. They were the main pillar of the Republic's government, and they were losing faith in their elected leaders: it's the reason they supported Brumaire, and it's the reason they supported the Empire.

It's a bit much to say that the ideology was dead since the Terror: why must the Revolution be a mass movement of the working class? That the notables were supportive of the overthrow of the Ancien Regime but otherwise sought stability to consolidate their social and economic standing is revolutionary in its own right: it is not at all dissimilar to what happened in the United States, but with a rather starker contrast, considering the relative liberality of the British Empire in comparison to Bourbon France.

Knight: He stands in the middle of an extreme that doesn't exist. There is no democratic movement in Orzammar: the casteless have no power. In order to be a Bonapartist, one has to balance between two conflicting forces: Napoleon III stood between the monarchists and the republicans (or in reality, between the Legitimists and Orleanists on one side and the Republicans and Socialists on the other). Napoleon III didn't really advance Bonapartism as an ideology at any rate, such things were left to Princess Matilde Bonaparte (at least as far as articulating the historical growth) and Persigny (who was the ideologue of Bonapartism--recall the Emperor's famous joke?).

Bhelen is the revolutionary here. He's the one advocating radical change, which puts him more in line with a reformist monarch than a Bonapartist.

That's not Fascism. Those criteria do not automatically make a system fascist. There are other requiements necessary.
I used it as an adjective rather than a noun, because I didn't think that he followed all the formal tenants of the ideology (esp. concerning hierarchy) but we can leave that aside from now. I'll happily drop the fascist part, and we can focus on discussing if he's really Bonapartist or not: and I maintain that he cannot be.

Modifié par Emperor Iaius I, 24 janvier 2010 - 09:37 .

[RangerSG]

Emperor Iaius



I don't argue the particulars. But Bonaparte's actions as Emperor prove that he used the ideology of the Revolution while subverting the principles (which I would submit were destroyed by the Terror anyway). I would say that the people accepted the Empire out of sheer exhaustion from the Terror's self-immolation.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...
Knight: He stands in the middle of an extreme that doesn't exist. There is no democratic movement in Orzammar: the casteless have no power. In order to be a Bonapartist, one has to balance between two conflicting forces: Napoleon III stood between the monarchists and the republicans (or in reality, between the Legitimists and Orleanists on one side and the Republicans and Socialists on the other). Napoleon III didn't really advance Bonapartism as an ideology at any rate, such things were left to Princess Matilde Bonaparte (at least as far as articulating the historical growth) and Persigny (who was the ideologue of Bonapartism--recall the Emperor's famous joke?).

Bhelen is the revolutionary here. He's the one advocating radical change, which puts him more in line with a reformist monarch than a Bonapartist.



That's not Fascism. Those criteria do not automatically make a system fascist. There are other requiements necessary.
I used it as an adjective rather than a noun, because I didn't think that he followed all the formal tenants of the ideology (esp. concerning hierarchy) but we can leave that aside from now. I'll happily drop the fascist part, and we can focus on discussing if he's really Bonapartist or not: and I maintain that he cannot be.

The nobleman in the tavern was a democrat in some respects, like advocating the assembly to be made up of all aspects of society. So the ideology is there, though unpopular and perhaps even mostly unknown.

Napoleon was also a reformist. His greatest reform is the Civil code and Jewish emancipation. Napoleon is a reformist "Monarch" / Emperor.

Obviously, calling him a Bonapartist is a stretch. It's anachronistic to use modenr idelogies to describe someone in the medieval era. My initial point was that comparing Bhelen to Bonapartism is more accurate than calling him a Fascist.
But a better way to describe Bhelen is: centrist, populist, reformist autocrat (Machiavellian too if you want).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 24 janvier 2010 - 09:45 .

[Emperor Iaius I]

Then why the One Hundred Days? To the people--at least, the common people--he still represented an abolition of feudal privileges. He was of them and from them, even as an hereditary monarch, so what really mattered if they had more rights? They were better off.

For the notables, it was a matter of pragmatism. We didn't truly see too much in the way of republican ideology because it had yet to develop. Napoleon III experienced far more opposition for betraying the Republic with his coup and coronation than Napoleon I, because the latter genuinely created a system that worked.. for a time.

The "sheer exhaustion" idea isn't too far from the truth, I should say. Certainly the notables wanted a degree of security for their newfound position. This is the same reason that they asked Napoleon to abdicate--not once, but twice. It came to a point where they realized the presence of Napoleon, because of unified European opposition, would do more to harm their gains than it would to secure them.

Until it got to that point, they were happy to back him. As far as the ideology and principles go: I would argue it was the reverse. He expressed admiration for its principles (indeed, he was a firebrand himself in his earlier years) but he did not care for its ideology or its methods. He desired stability. Certainly, as time went on, he became more and more absolutist a ruler but that is arguably a personality flaw rather than an intentional political move.

And it's a problem he attempted to rectify after his return from Elba, when he changed his role to be more akin to a constitutional monarch. We'll never see how that would have worked out, alas.

Knight: Right, he was--but he was a lone voice. He wasn't part of a movement, and certainly the rest of the Helmis were perplexed by his position.

But certainly, if we can both agree that he's neither fascist nor Bonapartist, that'll do just fine.

Modifié par Emperor Iaius I, 24 janvier 2010 - 09:49 .

[gogtg]

Harrowmont is the staunch conservative, Bhelen is the radical progressive. That's how I saw them anyway. Both choices have their ups and downs.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...
Knight: Right, he was--but he was a lone voice. He wasn't part of a movement, and certainly the rest of the Helmis were perplexed by his position.

But certainly, if we can both agree that he's neither fascist nor Bonapartist, that'll do just fine.

Indeed.
BTW, about the Persigny joke. You mean the one where Napoleon III said that Persigny was the only Bonapartist? lol

I really enjoyed this discussion. I even learned a few new things. Thanks

[mrofni]

This thread is so ****ing awesome. We're talking about Napoleon! Also, Harrowmont would be best compared to one of the Roman leaders before Julius Caesar changed their entire political system into a dictatorship. Actually, I'm pretty sure the entire Dwarven culture in DAO is based on Roman culture, but I digress. I would talk more about Napoleon, but I don't know as much from the French side compared to the Russian side of it.



If you're playing Dwarf Commoner, it feels as if you're kind of pushed towards picking Bhelen, while Dwarf Noble towards Harrowmont. If you're a commoner, your sister becomes a mistress to the Bhelen household. I haven't played the Dwarf Noble yet, but I know that if you pick Harrowmont, when he dies in the epilogue he chooses you to be his heir.



And KnightofPhoenix, I didn't know you were a Poli Sci student, me too! Very interesting.

[Xetirox]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
As for the people sayiig he is a tyrant. Big deal. I would rather have a progressive tyrant as a ruler instead of a weakling.

I wouldn't even call him a tyrant. The people who are most troubled/pissy about his rule are the upper castes (namely, nobility and warrior), who are the ones who generally run the Assembly, decide everything, and play their political games. They mostly disapprove of him because he undermines their own power. Power that they themselves prove they have no right to wield, what with how ineffectual and out of touch with reality they all are. Life for the Smiths, Artisans, and Servants? Same as ever. Life for the Merchants? Improved with increased surface trade (and that most definitely indirectly improves life for the Smiths and Artisans). Life for the Casteless? DEFINITELY improved.

Emperor Iaius I wrote...
He's a disgusting little worm. It is far better to support Harrowmont and maintain the social order.

Yes, and then the Dwarves can just whither away in an outdated system where they spend more time plotting and killing each other than doing anything serious about the Darkspawn knocking on their door, ignoring a huge chunk of their population that despite their wish to, will not just disappear, and growing increasingly inward when they can't survive without support from the surface.

People can call Bhelen a scumbag, and they'll be correct, but he's not
really doing anything the rest of the Dwarven nobility hasn't for the
past few centuries. He just does it a lot better.

[KnightofPhoenix]

mrofni wrote...
If you're playing Dwarf Commoner, it feels as if you're kind of pushed towards picking Bhelen, while Dwarf Noble towards Harrowmont. If you're a commoner, your sister becomes a mistress to the Bhelen household. I haven't played the Dwarf Noble yet, but I know that if you pick Harrowmont, when he dies in the epilogue he chooses you to be his heir.

And KnightofPhoenix, I didn't know you were a Poli Sci student, me too! Very interesting.

I agree, but my Dwarven Noble would pick Bhelen regardless. He doesn't really need to be king, he is paragon (in many ways, superior to Bhelen) and he is going to be Alistair's chancellor (the real ruler that is). So he doesn't mind Bhelen ruling.

And you are too? Nice. Maybe we should discuss things one day. I hope Mass Effect 2 will have alot of political subtleties that people like me and you can enjoy

[Emperor Iaius I]

Also, Harrowmont would be best compared to one of the Roman leaders before Julius Caesar changed their entire political system into a dictatorship


I don't know about that. Who? Would he be a conservative like an M. Aemilius Scaurus or a L. Licinius Lucullus? He seems a bit gentler, even in his traditionalism--might he then be a M. Tullius Cicero? Or did you mean a more generic comparison to a Roman statesmen?



As far as changing the entire political system to a dictatorship: I'd be careful of using that term, especially as dictator is a specific republican office that did not exist during the Principate (or early Empire), and the methods by which a dictator exercised power were vastly different than that of the Princeps because the former operated entirely on imperium (indeed, imperium of the sort that was equivalent to a lex curiata) while the latter operated more on the auctoritas of his person and the tribunicia potestas he held ex officio in order to massage the Senate into doing what he wanted.



Actually, I'm pretty sure the entire Dwarven culture in DAO is based on Roman culture, but I digress.


Eh, not entirely. The Romans did not have a caste system as such: and while you might argue that the patriciate is a caste, it certainly lost most meaning outside a few priesthoods and ceremonial offices by the late Republic. The bit about ancestor worship might work, and the paragons with a slight tweak (though a vir clarissimus would in no means ever outweigh the bulk of the Senate).



There are some elements that fit, but the Tevinter Imperium is the most direct analogue to the Roman Empire--from its name, blood sacrifices, idolatry, the Mediterranean complexion, down to the role of Minrathous as greatest city in the world in ancient times. Obviously, Minrathous is meant to be both Roma and Constantinopolis because the modern Imperium is modeled after the surviving Eastern Empire, but the capital had never moved.

[Thiefy]

Look at it this way: take a look at Orzammar. Do you believe it needs to change?



Yes- pick Bhelen.

No- pick Harrowmant.



The good guy/bad guy thing has no bearing on anyone other than dwarves because you will never see the full picture. Who the good guy/bad guy is also changes depending on if you are a commoner or noble.

[RangerSG]

How 'long' would it be improved for those people? Bhelen doesn't live forever. And then you have an absolute monarch with all that power over those same people with NO recourse for them.



And that's aside from the fact that if you disagree with him, you end up dead.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xetirox wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
As for the people sayiig he is a tyrant. Big deal. I would rather have a progressive tyrant as a ruler instead of a weakling.

I wouldn't even call him a tyrant. The people who are most troubled/pissy about his rule are the upper castes (namely, nobility and warrior), who are the ones who generally run the Assembly, decide everything, and play their political games. They mostly disapprove of him because he undermines their own power. Power that they themselves prove they have no right to wield, what with how ineffectual and out of touch with reality they all are. Life for the Smiths, Artisans, and Servants? Same as ever. Life for the Merchants? Improved with increased surface trade (and that most definitely indirectly improves life for the Smiths and Artisans). Life for the Casteless? DEFINITELY improved.

Tyrant simple means "King" literraly speaking. That's how I meant it.
But he is generally not an oppressive ruler as far as we know, that's true. Only the Assembly was hurt under his rule and that's after several assassination attempts. Plus the opposition, which comes msotly from the warrior caste and the nobility. I don't see why the commoners would oppose Bhelen's policies.

Hopefully Awakening can shed moe light on Bhelen and how he rules ORzammar. Then we can judge / analyse him better.

[KnightofPhoenix]

RangerSG wrote...

How 'long' would it be improved for those people? Bhelen doesn't live forever. And then you have an absolute monarch with all that power over those same people with NO recourse for them.

And that's aside from the fact that if you disagree with him, you end up dead.

Well if Bhelen truly succeeds in changing people's mentality and the system, then it would be extremily difficult for the prievous system to restore itself.

Who would succed Bhelen? That remains to be seen. We don't know what he is planning. Maybe he will restore the assembly (and reform it) when he sees fit and make it an elective monarchy once again. Maybe he won't. We don't really know.
But I would argue that even if Bhelen is replaced by an absolutist, his actions would have brought more improvement and progress for Orzammar in both the long and short term. Except if his successor is someone like Nero, then that's another thing.

[mrofni]

The Tevinter Imperiuim is only more like the Roman Empire when comparing their actual military conquests and the religion. The Dwarves were a lot closer when it comes to their social aspects. The Dwarves had a senate in a very similar manner. It was riddled with assassination and blackmailing. Their army was considered a noble birth right, incredibly similar to how it was with the Romans. They had a Coliseum. The Romans had a clear difference between the Nobles, who had a voice in the Senate, their merchants, and the peasants/slaves they had everywhere else. Hell, even the Paragons are reflective of the Roman Empire, who had some people who were able to rise up through their pure accomplishments.

[Emperor Iaius I]

mrofni: Careful. The nobles--or, more properly speaking, the nobiles, were those who were descended from a man who had been consul. It's quite plain to see that a man would have to ascend the entire cursus honorum before becoming a Senate, which is why the Senate often featured a number of novi homines (the opposite of the nobiles) at any one time.

You have to be very careful when speaking of the Roman aristocracy. Use your terms precisely.

There are at least three different, occasionally coextensive, levels of the Roman aristocracy.

There's the patriciate. The patricians were those descended from the original patres of the Roman Senate under the kings, from the oldest (the gens Julia) the the newest (the gens Claudia). Patrician status was determined by both and circumscribed religious life quite thoroughly, although it was actually a bit of a hindrance politically since only one consul could be patrician following the lex Licinia Sextia.

There were the nobiles--descendants of a consul, as outlined above. These could be either patricians or plebeians, and by the middle Republic, nobility tended to have more political clout than the patriciate on its own.

Then there's the senatorial order, a status granted to Roman senators, wives, daughters, and partially to their sons (who were notionally members of the equestrian order). Admission to the Senate required censorial approval, and starting from the dictatorship of Sulla, occupancy of the quaestorship or military honors such as the corona civica.

As far as Tevinter goes: it goes deeper than that. The dwarves had an assembly, and it was organized in a different fashion than the Roman Senate. I should remind you, too, that the Imperium does have a Senate--check out the timeline in the strategy guide for a reference. As far as the army: you are failing to distinguish the crucial distinction between their "warrior caste" (all of whom fight) and the Roman army, which was composed of property holders (farmers) in the early Republic and the landless poor in the later Republic. This is an extremely sharp contrast, and you're not looking close enough if you think it's a parallel.

A "coliseum"? How is that a parallel? Dwarves win the approval of their ancestors in the Proving, whereas any Roman who fought in the arenas had disgraced himself and was thought up as less than a slave.

The Romans had a clear difference between the Nobles, who had a voice in the Senate, their merchants, and the peasants/slaves they had everywhere else.
Is that why the sons of slaves became Roman senators? M. Porcius Cato Salonianus would have something to say to that.

Hell, even the Paragons are reflective of the Roman Empire, who had some people who were able to rise up through their pure accomplishments.
????

Rise up through pure accomplishments? That could describe any number of societies. You can't be serious.

You're seeing making very superficial parallels here that cannot survive close scrutiny. You're also not paying very close attention to Tevinter culture and its own similarities, from nomenclature to visual imagery. I'd argue any resemblance the dwarves had to the Romans would be purely coincidental and best, and downright contradictory at worst.

You are a political science student, yes? I am a degree-endowed classicist and philologist, so I'm scholastically qualified on the matter and I assure you that the Imperium is far, far closer to being Roman than the dwarves are.

Knight: Tyrant simple means "King" literraly speaking. That's how I meant it.
No, it does not. The word τυραννος refers to a man who has gained power illegitimately by bypassing the ruling classes and using the populace to gain power. Bhelen might be considered a tyrant on those grounds, except that he is both of a legitimate bloodline and had gotten a paragon and the Assembly to ratify his position: this would make him a legitimate monarch and ineligible to fulfill the original definition of monarch.

If you want the Greek word for king, you'd be looking for βασιλευς.

As far as Nero goes--be careful there, too. He wasn't a bad ruler, as long as you weren't in the senatorial order. He offended tradition and decency, but did well by the Roman people up until he exiled Seneca and killed his wise mother. Such a person might well fit the style that Bhelen had set out.

Modifié par Emperor Iaius I, 24 janvier 2010 - 11:03 .

[Godak]

Well, TC, let's look at this logically for a moment.



Bhelen: The only way he can be seen as a "villain" is if you are playing as a dwarven noble. However, in any other origin it can be assumed that the second Aeduncan brother was just as inept and traditional as Trian.



When Bhelen is made king, he eventually abolishes the assembly. Why? The nobles had made several attempts on his life! The dissolving of the assembly was long overdue, and its prolonging would have been a detriment to Orzammar's success.



Also, Bhelen reclaims large amounts of the dwarven empire, and allows the castless to participate in military action in exchange for rights.



Under Bhelen, Orzammar rekindles surface relations, and leads Orzammar into an age of prosperity.



Harromont: He is unable the unite the dwarven people, and he clings to tradition. He further isolates the dwarven kingdoms, and dies shortly after his rule begins.



In conclusion, don't pick Harromont unless you really hate dwarves.

[Doyle41]

yeah i was duped by harrowmont. with the note from the king and bhelan's irrational behavior. after the epilogue i realized i had made the wrong decision.

[thegreateski]

Talk to every damn person who moves.



I found that to be the most effective method. That and listening to the two "Criers"

[Kaoschizm]

Bhelen: The only way he can be seen as a "villain" is if you are playing as a dwarven noble

I dunno I think murdering your family and blackmail pretty much puts you in 'villain' territory.



I haven't seen the ending yet so I can't comment on the finer details, but the fact that a kingdom becomes successful isn't necessarily a good thing. I know the comparison to fascism has already been made but the fact is that Germany was very successful under Hitler for a while, and would probably have continued that way had England allied with them against the Russians. I think most people, however, would take 50 years of cold war over living under a fascist dictatorship.



That said obviously there are differences... Communists are not Darkspawn and Bhelen is obviously not Hitler, but you can definitely see both sides of the coin.

[Emperor Iaius I]

On reflection, perhaps Bhelen COULD be a Bonapartist if he favors Napoleon as the new Paragon and Emperor of Orzammar. With his height, I am sure he might be mistaken for a dwarf.

[Godak]

News of the hour! Could Bhelen Aeduncan actually be Napoleon Bonaparte?! Rumors suggest that the two have an uncanny resemblance! Epic Fail.