71 réponses à ce sujet

[JKJEDIKNIGHT]

The "better" choice depends on what you want for the Dwarfs at the end. It's also determined on whether you destroy the anvil of the void. As far as making things better for the dwarfs, I think it's best to put Bhelen on the throne and destroy the anvil. As far as life for the dwarfs, I didn't see any changes I deemed better for them by putting Harrowmont on the throne. I felt less dirty after seeing the Dwarf Noble Origin, but still in the long run, I think Bhelen makes the Dwarven Kingdom better.

[Rolenka]

You can sort of tell by the first tasks they give you.. Harrowmont asks you to fight in the proving, Bhelen asks you to do political dirty work.

Bhelen is evil. Harrowmont is good. It becomes more obvious as the quest progresses.

[GmanFresh]

play dwarf noble intro

[Xetirox]

Rolenka wrote...

You can sort of tell by the first tasks they give you.. Harrowmont asks you to fight in the proving, Bhelen asks you to do political dirty work.

Bhelen is evil. Harrowmont is good. It becomes more obvious as the quest progresses.

On the other hand, Bhelen seems like the kind who gets **** done, making you do a mission that aims to swing things more in his favor in the election and quicken the process, whereas Harrowmont seems like such an ineffectual leader, he can't even get his own men to fight on his behalf (and is essentially sending you to run an errand).

Not to mention, as has been said before, doing some extra research in-game, via speaking with various NPCs and listening to the criers, shows this isn't quite as black and white as it appears on the surface. Harrowmont is a traditionalist, which means he wants to preserve everything about Dwarven culture. Everything, including the rigid caste-based society, keeping the casteless right at the bottom, and effectively exiling any Dwarf who so much as steps outside Orzammar's front door. Meanwhile, Bhelen seems to want to enact some fairly radical change, might be more sympathetic to the lower castes, seems to want to increase relations with the surface, and may be seriously preparing for war (which any decent Gray Warden worth his salt should really be concerned about above all else).

Modifié par Xetirox, 25 janvier 2010 - 04:45 .

[mrofni]

They're both terrible. If you're Dwarf Commoner, I'd say Bhelen is better. If you're Dwarf Noble, I'd say Harrowmont is better. Otherwise, I think they're pretty equal.

[Emperor Iaius I]

I think that fits well with the general mood of the game: what we say about Harrowmont or Bhelen could equally apply to the Chantry, the human nobility, the elves, etc. I wouldn't call it morally grey, but rather, morally shaded and nuanced. I like that neither is strictly good--one's perspective on them depends greatly on one's opinions on what they stand for, and what they have to do to get there.

[Godak]

mrofni wrote...

They're both terrible. If you're Dwarf Commoner, I'd say Bhelen is better. If you're Dwarf Noble, I'd say Harrowmont is better. Otherwise, I think they're pretty equal.

Eh. I reconciled with Bhelen as a Dwarf noble. I made it clear that I never had any political designs, and he allowed me to help him claim the throne. I'm just the best older brother ever.


Anyway, Bhelen really is the better choice if you want the dwarves to continue living. Picking Harromont is pretty much a death sentence for the entire race.

[Envor44]

I would say Bhelen is real ****(If you have play Dwarven Noble Origin)



But he made stronger king and improve Orzammar(So for sake of Orzammar) i choose Bhelen

[angj57]

Well as a disinterested Grey Warden, Bhelen clearly makes for the stronger, more effective leader, and the dwarves are providing you with military aid, so it makes sense to choose Bhelen. You don't have a lot of troops or allies, so having the strongest ones you can get is a good choice.

As a Dwarf who cares about Orzamar it's a tougher choice: Bhelen is effective, Harrowmont is weak. Point for Bhelen. Bhelen has an amoral personal life and seems to be a sociopath, Harrowmont is the other way around. Point for Harrowmont. But Bhelen's public policy and his support of social reform is a lot more moral than Harrowmont's defence of the old order. Point for Bhelen. But then, of course, we can imagine that Bhelen would switch his policies around on a whim for expediencies sake. Hypothetical point for Harrowmont.

In the end, this is a roleplaying game after all. Your character's decision should be based on who they are. But it's not as simple as "a good character picks A, an evil one picks B". I would imagine that a noble character would see the conservative Harrowmont as the good guy and a commoner would see the populist Bhelen as the good guy. A mage is probably going to be more of a pragmatist, and Bhelen makes for the stronger ally, so they would probably go for Bhelen too. I doubt a Dalish would give a **** either way.

[TSamee]

In terms of how they'll rule, Bhelen is effectively representing change, with Harrowmont representing extreme traditionalism. Harrowmont actually ends up making Orzammar even more backwards, by increasing the rigidity of the caste system and decreasing surface interaction even further. Bhelen plans on improving prospects for the casteless by allowing them to fight the Darkspawn, etc., and increases surface trade.



It's pretty obvious that Orzammar can't last with the resources and class system it has now, so Bhelen is the better choice (in my opinion) for the city's future. However, he ends up dissolving the Council after several attempts on his life, making the place a balls-out dictatorship. He is also, as the Dwarf Noble origin tells you (you can gather it from just speaking to him as well), a complete and utter bastard. He's likely to have framed one of his three brothers for the murder of the other, securing the throne for himself. In order to win the Proving against Harrowmont's fighters, he blackmails them with forged documents (the Shaperate can confirm this if you show the documents to them).



Harrowmont seems pretty clean as a person, his only real personal fault being that he's a massive traditionalist. But in the epilogue you can see that his choices could screw Orzammar over by making it even more socially rigid and backwards.



So, the two condensed choices:



Bhelen- Believes that ends justify means (as long as we're talking about his ends), strong leadership (and dictatorship), he's the best long-term choice for Orzammar (he's a reformer), but, he's not a very nice person. To say the least.



Harrowmont- Decent person, but his overly-conservative ruling style is probably not the best way for Orzammar to go.

[hero 2]

It's a classic Benign Dictatorship versus Oppressive subDemocracy dichotomy... or somesuch.

[DKJaigen]

Kaoschizm wrote...

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.

Why do you drag fascism or communism  into this mate? it has absolutely nothing to do with this. In retrospect a kings first objective is to make sure his people prosper. Bhelen does this and is therefore is the best king. That he uses heavy handed means is necessary.  The system the dwarves build is made out of castes with 2 castes (warrior and noble) having a huge amount of privileges and wishing to maintain the status quo. such systems usually don't change without a good deal of violence and bloodletting

[earl of the north]

One point...in my latest playthrough I did kill Trian and there is no proof that Bhelen murdered his father since nobody ever openly accuses Bhelen of the crime.



Bhelen manipulated Trian and my character into a fight and then framed the winner.



So while he was behind the death of the heir, my characters banishment etc....he did not necessarily murder a single member of his family.

[Demx]

I wonder if your choice for who is king will affect the expansion pack in anyway?

[Bratinov]

Well a outsider would chose Harrowmont, for the lack of info on dwarf society and Bhelen and his assistant seem like thugs.



A selfish dwarf noble will chose Harrowmont for revenge and for his/her father, ignoring Bhelens political skills. This made me mad at the end since Harrowmont wrecked my efforts to help the city.



Im yet to play Commoner.

[maxernst]

Thanks for the replies. Playing as a human noble, my information is limited. Had I known for sure he wanted to shake up the caste system, I might have been tempted to go with Bhelen, but the noble in Tapsters who opposed the caste system said he thought Bhelen only cared about winning. After I talked to the shaper, I found that the papers were forgeries and Bhelen had showed an interest in an autocratic previous king, so...I went with Harrowmont. No dirty work seemed to be required, at least for the initial quest. My character isn't super-honorable, but without any concrete reason to think Bhelen would be better, why be unscrupulous for his benefit?



I think on balance, despite the fact that my character sympathizes with the casteless, it probably makes more sense for a Gray Warden outsider to choose Harrowmont. My primary interest is the Blight, and while revolutionary change might be good for the dwarves, in the short term it means internal conflict. Unless the casteless are on the verge of a revolution, a consensus-building status quo guy is probably better to deliver the dwarves help on the blight. It's not really my place to try and change their society, especially given how little I understand it.

[Vuokseniska]

as commoner, your sister is the chick of Bhelen. so Bhelen is your new family and he wants to try and change the casteless system. It would be interesting what the outcome is if you are a noble and you side with Bhelen or a commoner and you side with harrowmont

[RangerSG]

maxernst wrote...

Thanks for the replies. Playing as a human noble, my information is limited. Had I known for sure he wanted to shake up the caste system, I might have been tempted to go with Bhelen, but the noble in Tapsters who opposed the caste system said he thought Bhelen only cared about winning. After I talked to the shaper, I found that the papers were forgeries and Bhelen had showed an interest in an autocratic previous king, so...I went with Harrowmont. No dirty work seemed to be required, at least for the initial quest. My character isn't super-honorable, but without any concrete reason to think Bhelen would be better, why be unscrupulous for his benefit?

I think on balance, despite the fact that my character sympathizes with the casteless, it probably makes more sense for a Gray Warden outsider to choose Harrowmont. My primary interest is the Blight, and while revolutionary change might be good for the dwarves, in the short term it means internal conflict. Unless the casteless are on the verge of a revolution, a consensus-building status quo guy is probably better to deliver the dwarves help on the blight. It's not really my place to try and change their society, especially given how little I understand it.

I've had a mage support Bhelen and the other support Harrowmont. The first did so primarily because he felt they were both playing games with him, so he just supported Bhelen to get it over with. The other dug a bit and found out what a snake Bhelen was and that turned her off.

As far as judging on what they 'will' do from the epilogue goes. I'm always loathe making choice based on a future my PC does not know about.

As far as the best result goes. I still say it's DN supporting Harrowmont. Short Harrowmont reign, with the PC named as Paragon and heir (and no one is going to dispute a paragon wanting the throne in the Assembly) and you can imagine yourself making any kind of changes you want. 

[StaticSilence]

Entering Orzammar as a human noble on my first playthrough. There is no clear indication who did what. Because there's no evidence, and only speculation, you can only go by what you know. And for me, this is what you know:

-It cannot be proven either way who killed the king. Thus, the point is moot.
-Behlen is the legitimate heir, but do blood ties give you entitlement to the throne? I did not agree with that.
-Behlen's progressive ideals may be good, but Behlen lies and cheats to further himself. Do his ends justify the means?
-As a Grey Warden, you are to be neutral to all politics anyways- you're only concern is to assemble and army to stop The Blight.
-Knowing how much Behlen lies (all the quests this guy gets you to do are lying and cheating) I reasoned that I couldn't trust him to support me even if I supported him.
-Though I do not approve of the rigid caste system, as a Grey Warden it was not my place to interfere in the future of Orzammar society. Thus, knowing Harrowmont being the honorable choice (never asks you to lie, only asks you to fight in his name) I had to take Harrowmont as the best choice to ensure I'd get my dwarven army.


The beauty of this game is that moral choices you make in one main quest have a tendency to overlap into other main quests. You'll notice common traits- blood ties to the throne, progessive vs fundamentalism, revenge vs mercy & atonement. They're all over and the real question is will you consistent be in your beliefs or do you adapt and change as the situation arises.

I love this game.

Modifié par StaticSilence, 26 janvier 2010 - 09:27 .

[Joseph Silver]

I chose Harrowmont on my first playthrough, but chose Bhelen for each subsequent one. Choosing the former effectively sentences the dwarven people to a slow death while choosing the latter allows them to survive and actually flourish.

[nmal015]

Neither is a good ruler, but Bhelen is pretty much evil, he kills/attempts to kill his siblings. Lies, cheats and executes innocents to obtain and mantain power.



I dont care if bhelens ways make the dwarves more prosperious, believe it or not(as much as i hate bringing the ****'s into any argument) hitler made germany incredibly prosperious in a very short space of time. If we are adapting the reasoning seen here, he was a good strong ruler willing to do what needed to be done.



In my mind a weak ruler always comes before an evil tyrant.

[Godak]

nmal015 wrote...

Neither is a good ruler, but Bhelen is pretty much evil, he kills/attempts to kill his siblings. Lies, cheats and executes innocents to obtain and mantain power.

I dont care if bhelens ways make the dwarves more prosperious, believe it or not(as much as i hate bringing the ****'s into any argument) hitler made germany incredibly prosperious in a very short space of time. If we are adapting the reasoning seen here, he was a good strong ruler willing to do what needed to be done.

In my mind a weak ruler always comes before an evil tyrant.

Hitler was oppresive, Bhelen is liberating. Hitler starts wars, Bhelen improves relations with other peoples. Also, Bhelen's brothers were very similar to their father (dutiful traditionalists) who would have killed Bhelen if he hadn't killed them first. That's dwarven politics.