78 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

Oh, right. House Klaret I think it was. Bear in mind that that was early in his rule, though. As was House Helmi, assuming that Bhelen did not approve of or at least authorize that mission. Unless you have a failure of command that happens far later I'm not sure it's anything more than a shaky start before he hits his stride.

 

Well... there's also House Dace still having its own men for an expedition into Amgarrak after the events of Origins and Awakening. Much of the problem within Orzammar's society stems from the fact that each noble house has its own warriors, and they're often too busy fighting with one another and unwilling to sacrifice a little of their land to save the rest of the empire.

 

But I admit, I just really detest the very... false set-up of Orzammar's political scene, from a writing perspective. Maybe he would hit his stride, eventually.

 

I just don't really see it as possible because he's actually very easy to read.

 

One of the more interesting DN game I've read about was from other poster (KoP, dunno if he's still around) back in the DAO days was this:

DN respected and admired Bhelen's game. DN went on to put a weak Alistair (not hardened) on the human throne and appointed himself as Alistair's chancellor. This way the Aeducan brothers would be in a position to control both dwarven and human kingdoms for their own ends.

Of course, this is just one way to interpret the events of DAO, but I thought it was a nice perspective.

 

Yup, KoP's Aeducan was a grandmaster of the political scene.

 

Indeed, I'd almost be tempted to do that myself, because one could actually say that an Aeducan Warden is in control of both kingdoms, upon being named Paragon. But I prefer my alliance between Orzammar and Ferelden between the Cousland twins, Xanthos, Anora, and Alistair.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

You mean the same family that exiled the "Pride of Aeducan" (note: you) without giving a chance at defending yourself? No assembly defense, no proving to show innocence, nothing. Endrin sacrifices his favourite son just because he did not want the murder investigated.

Sorry for such a late response, but YES, the same family that sold you out. Treachery seems like a pretty cultural thing with dwarves; I am reminded of Varric's description of those in the merchant's guild (willing to sell their own mothers for a larger share of the lyrium market). One can only imagine what it's like among the nobility. So while Warden Aeducan might be sour about his/her fate, part of them might also feel like that's just politics for you.

Enderin actually seemed to realize his folly and died with (perhaps even died of) deep regret. That is part of the reason why Warden Aeducan might even feel compelled to help Bhelen, feeling like their father would not want to see House Aeducan fall to infighting between his siblings, so he/she takes the high road for the family.

 

Then it is Harrowmont who feeds you the information about the wardens you need to survive.

Well the apple often does not fall far from the tree. So just as Bhelen betrayed his sibling, the Warden may similarly betray the man who helped him/her.

[Jouni S]

The playthrough with a Dwarf noble Warden was the only time I enjoyed visiting Orzammar. He eventually sided with Bhelen, because he knew how the game was played, and he preferred having a strong Orzammar over getting personal revenge.

 

In the other playthroughs, I would have preferred skipping Orzammar entirely. Choosing between Neville Chamberlain and Joseph Stalin didn't make any sense for most of my Wardens, and it didn't lead to any interesting consequences either. My canon City Elf Warden, for example, would have preferred raising an army of casteless and leading it to the surface, leaving the nobles to fight their meaningless civil war. Then the epilogue could have stated that as the Blight ended and the darkspawn returned to the Deep Roads, the defenses of the weakened Orzammar were overrun, and the dwarven kingdom was no more.

[MouseHopper]

Very interesting analogy you chose, Jouni S.  I'd never thought of it that way, but I can see why you did.  I must reconsider.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

In the other playthroughs, I would have preferred skipping Orzammar entirely. Choosing between Neville Chamberlain and Joseph Stalin didn't make any sense for most of my Wardens, and it didn't lead to any interesting consequences either. My canon City Elf Warden, for example, would have preferred raising an army of casteless and leading it to the surface, leaving the nobles to fight their meaningless civil war. Then the epilogue could have stated that as the Blight ended and the darkspawn returned to the Deep Roads, the defenses of the weakened Orzammar were overrun, and the dwarven kingdom was no more.

That would not have been good news for anyone.

[Aimi]

Very interesting analogy you chose, Jouni S.  I'd never thought of it that way, but I can see why you did.  I must reconsider.

It's a godawful analogy. Harrowmont and Bhelen aren't moral opposites; their chief difference in that regard is that Bhelen is more openly violent than his opponent. Nor is Harrowmont one who uselessly dithers while his opponent gathers strength: he was the one in on the ground floor with the king, after all. There's nothing similar to appeasement in Harrowmont's program. Conversely, Chamberlain and Hitler aren't remotely associated with the social policies Harrowmont and Bhelen chose to deal with.

The contrast is a somewhat more subtle reference. Bhelen is portrayed as being similar to the so-called "New Monarchs" of Europe, which in conventional historiography "broke free" from the "constraints" imposed by aristocratic interests, developing "feudal" monarchies more in the direction of absolutist/bureaucratic states. Harrowmont represents the groups opposed to those sorts of changes. An awkward and imperfect analogy: where Bhelen is similar to Andronikos I Komnenos, Harrowmont is more like Isaakios II Angelos, Andronikos' successor.

For historians of the middle of the last century, the New Monarchs and their policies marked the boundary between medieval Europe and the Europe of the early modern era. Bhelen is not the only one who bears some similarity to them: Celene and Anora both deal in policies associated with historical New Monarchs.

Modern historians generally don't set much store by this distinction or the trend it supposedly represented (at least, good modern historians don't) but it remains a trope in nonacademic historical literature.

[Jouni S]

It's a godawful analogy. Harrowmont and Bhelen aren't moral opposites; their chief difference in that regard is that Bhelen is more openly violent than his opponent. Nor is Harrowmont one who uselessly dithers while his opponent gathers strength: he was the one in on the ground floor with the king, after all. There's nothing similar to appeasement in Harrowmont's program. Conversely, Chamberlain and Hitler aren't remotely associated with the social policies Harrowmont and Bhelen chose to deal with.

 

I was comparing them from a practical standpoint, not from a moral one. Besides, it was Stalin and Chamberlain, not Hitler and Chamberlain.

 

Stalin supported many progressive policies and genuinely believed that he was working for the best of the people. Many of the common people also genuinely supported him. Stalin was also ruthless and paranoid, which ultimately made him a bloodthirsty tyrant who systematically eliminated his opponents. Pretty much like Bhelen in the game.

 

In most of the world, Chamberlain is remembered only as a caricature. He is a respected traditionalist with a poor grasp of reality, one who makes bad mistakes and leads his country into deep trouble. This caricature captures the significant characteristics of Harrowmont.

 

The important part of the comparison is that Bhelen is presented in the game as a textbook example of someone who is about to become a bloodthirsty tyrant. Supporting him is probably good for Orzammar in the short term (much like Stalin built a global superpower out of the ruins of Imperial Russia), but in the long term he seems like an extremely bad choice.

 

This is why I don't like the choice the Warden has to make in Orzammar. Either I support a weak leader who can barely provide enough stability to send an army to help Ferelden, or I help a bloodthirsty tyrant into power. Ignoring dwarven politics and raising an army of casteless would feel much more satisfying, even though it could lead to the destruction of Orzammar.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I was comparing them from a practical standpoint, not from a moral one. Besides, it was Stalin and Chamberlain, not Hitler and Chamberlain.

 

Stalin supported many progressive policies and genuinely believed that he was working for the best of the people. Many of the common people also genuinely supported him. Stalin was also ruthless and paranoid, which ultimately made him a bloodthirsty tyrant who systematically eliminated his opponents. Pretty much like Bhelen in the game.

 

In most of the world, Chamberlain is remembered only as a caricature. He is a respected traditionalist with a poor grasp of reality, one who makes bad mistakes and leads his country into deep trouble. This caricature captures the significant characteristics of Harrowmont.

 

The important part of the comparison is that Bhelen is presented in the game as a textbook example of someone who is about to become a bloodthirsty tyrant. Supporting him is probably good for Orzammar in the short term (much like Stalin built a global superpower out of the ruins of Imperial Russia), but in the long term he seems like an extremely bad choice.

 

This is why I don't like the choice the Warden has to make in Orzammar. Either I support a weak leader who can barely provide enough stability to send an army to help Ferelden, or I help a bloodthirsty tyrant into power. Ignoring dwarven politics and raising an army of casteless would feel much more satisfying, even though it could lead to the destruction of Orzammar.

If it helps, Bhelen might well be an improvement long-term as well. Not because I really trust his heirs not to be dingbats, but because the current dwarven system is not working at all, and Bhelen's epilogue slides present an alternative.

[Aimi]

I was comparing them from a practical standpoint, not from a moral one. Besides, it was Stalin and Chamberlain, not Hitler and Chamberlain.
 
Stalin supported many progressive policies and genuinely believed that he was working for the best of the people. Many of the common people also genuinely supported him. Stalin was also ruthless and paranoid, which ultimately made him a bloodthirsty tyrant who systematically eliminated his opponents. Pretty much like Bhelen in the game.
 
In most of the world, Chamberlain is remembered only as a caricature. He is a respected traditionalist with a poor grasp of reality, one who makes bad mistakes and leads his country into deep trouble. This caricature captures the significant characteristics of Harrowmont.
 
The important part of the comparison is that Bhelen is presented in the game as a textbook example of someone who is about to become a bloodthirsty tyrant. Supporting him is probably good for Orzammar in the short term (much like Stalin built a global superpower out of the ruins of Imperial Russia), but in the long term he seems like an extremely bad choice.
 
This is why I don't like the choice the Warden has to make in Orzammar. Either I support a weak leader who can barely provide enough stability to send an army to help Ferelden, or I help a bloodthirsty tyrant into power. Ignoring dwarven politics and raising an army of casteless would feel much more satisfying, even though it could lead to the destruction of Orzammar.

My bad. I guess I skimmed that bit. Doesn't change much.

Again, neither of those comparisons is all that good. Ignore the bit where you succeeded where countless biographers failed and successfully figured out the basic motivations of the most inscrutable individual in Russian history. You really have to stretch to compare the casteless/external trade/proroguing the Assembly policies with the Five Year Plans, the Comintern, and the purges. "Progressive" means radically different things to different people in different eras, and Bhelen's "progressive" autocracy is really not close to Stalin's at all. But more importantly, not only is it a bad comparison on its own merits, but there are plenty of better ones out there.

And the Chamberlain/Harrowmont comparison is even worse. Harrowmont has not been shown to be a bad ruler. Isolationist, yes (something that Chamberlain was emphatically not). But Orzammar's power-political position isn't necessarily any worse with him in charge. According to the epilogues, he can have the same kind of success as Bhelen does in the Deep Roads, and on balance probably causes significantly less short-term internal strife that we know of. Describing him as a weak fool is pure headcanon.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

And the Chamberlain/Harrowmont comparison is even worse. Harrowmont has not been shown to be a bad ruler. Isolationist, yes (something that Chamberlain was emphatically not). But Orzammar's power-political position isn't necessarily any worse with him in charge. According to the epilogues, he can have the same kind of success as Bhelen does in the Deep Roads, and on balance probably causes significantly less short-term internal strife that we know of. Describing him as a weak fool is pure headcanon.

I got the impression that he weakens trade, strengthens caste restrictions, and that his gains in the Deep Roads depend on Branka's golems where Bhelen's did not.

[Aimi]

I got the impression that he weakens trade, strengthens caste restrictions, and that his gains in the Deep Roads depend on Branka's golems where Bhelen's did not.

Yeah, he shuts Orzammar off from "harmful" contact with outsiders, which doesn't appear to have an effect on the vast majority of Orzammar's actual trade (the illicit Merchants' Guild stuff that keeps going in DA2 regardless) and which might have an effect on the sorts of cultural "pollution" that you can see in Orzammar during Origins (e.g. Burkel) the extinguishing of which would gain plaudits from his backers. In fact, the epilogue makes pretty clear that that trade restriction might be the basis of his power in the Assembly, such as it is. In which case, it's kind of hard to argue against it on the grounds that it makes him look like a weak doofus, no?

Whether caste restrictions have an objective impact on Orzammar's power has not been demonstrated in the games.

The Deep Roads stuff between Harrowmont and Bhelen is uneven. Bhelen does better than Harrowmont without the Anvil, especially with Fereldan aid. But with the Anvil, he only has use of it for a short time before turning on Branka and failing, thus losing access to the Anvil anyway and creating a dangerous rival out in the Deep Roads. Harrowmont, on the other hand, keeps Branka pacified with an endless stream of souls for her golems, first from dwarves and then from hapless surfacers. This apparently sparks a war with Ferelden and a further reduction in trade, but the golem pipeline remains intact for Orzammar's use. Overall, I'd say the two rulers are a wash in this regard.

I'm not advocating for Harrowmont, here: I'm just trying to say that comparing him to Neville freaking Chamberlain is laughably ahistorical.

[TEWR]

I got the impression that he weakens trade, strengthens caste restrictions, and that his gains in the Deep Roads depend on Branka's golems where Bhelen's did not.

 

Pretty much exactly what he does. Orzammar becomes even more closed off as a result. He puts down the casteless using Golems if he has them and is so weak as a ruler without them that Orzammar becomes even worse off, falling to another potential civil war (unless you're a DN, in which case Gorim says he names you his heir, though it's not worth the lives lost in the end when there are better avenues to get the throne).

 

Epilogue endings with Harrowmont as Ruler:

 

 

Branka is alive

“In Orzammar, King Harrowmont quickly put down Bhelen's rebellion and then passed a series of laws to please the clan lords. Unfortunately, that isolated the dwarves even further from the surface. Caste restrictions and the rights of the nobles both grew, and trade with the human lands was all but cut off.”

“Branka was killedIn Orzammar, King Harrowmont found himself in a protracted battle against Bhelen's rebellion that left him unable to gain the stability he needed. The clan lords objected to many of his measures in the Assembly, and only his efforts to increase the dwarves' isolation from the surface met with any success.”
 

Hero asked for aid

“When the first human armies arrived from Ferelden, they found themselves blocked at the city gates. Harrowmont feared the disruption the humans would cause and permitted only limited aid in the form of equipment and herbal medicines.”

 

After a law excluding the casteless from common areas of the city was passed, a rebellion saw the slums reduced practically to rubble. Although outrage was widespread, the Assembly remained united behind King Harrowmont.”

 

“In time, Harrowmont's health began to fail. Some claimed it was poison, while others said it was a flagging spirit. Either way, after a protracted illness, the king finally passed away. The wrangling in the Assembly for a successor began almost immediately.”

 

“Initially, King Harrowmont was more than willing to provide volunteers for Branka. The golems were sorely needed to crush Bhelen's rebellion, after all, and they did so with success.”

 

“But eventually, Harrowmont declared that no new dwarven souls could be used on the Anvil. The unending need for golems in the Deep Roads, however, gave rise to secret surface raids to kidnap humans and elves for the mad Paragon.”

 

“When this came to light, a brief war broke out between Orzammar and Ferelden. The gates to the subterranean city were sealed and Harrowmont's kingdom became more isolated than ever. Branka insists, of course, that the raids on the surface continue.”

[TEWR]

(the illicit Merchants' Guild stuff that keeps going in DA2 regardless

 

 

None of that is dependent on Orzammar as a lifeline. Orzammar just helps it keep going, but the Merchants' Guild wouldn't be very good if it didn't have its own avenues of procuring items.

[Jouni S]

Again, neither of those comparisons is all that good. Ignore the bit where you succeeded where countless biographers failed and successfully figured out the basic motivations of the most inscrutable individual in Russian history. You really have to stretch to compare the casteless/external trade/proroguing the Assembly policies with the Five Year Plans, the Comintern, and the purges. "Progressive" means radically different things to different people in different eras, and Bhelen's "progressive" autocracy is really not close to Stalin's at all. But more importantly, not only is it a bad comparison on its own merits, but there are plenty of better ones out there.

And the Chamberlain/Harrowmont comparison is even worse. Harrowmont has not been shown to be a bad ruler. Isolationist, yes (something that Chamberlain was emphatically not). But Orzammar's power-political position isn't necessarily any worse with him in charge. According to the epilogues, he can have the same kind of success as Bhelen does in the Deep Roads, and on balance probably causes significantly less short-term internal strife that we know of. Describing him as a weak fool is pure headcanon.

 

You're concentrating on minor surface details, such as five year plans, the Comintern, and whether Stalin's generally understood motives were his true motives. The important parts are that Bhelen has a similar personality as Stalin had, he ascends to power by similar means, he modernizes his country and makes it more prosperous, he is successful in war, he purges the traditional elites who oppose him, and his reign benefits the common people to some degree.

 

Harrowmont is shown to be a complete failure in the epilogue. He isolates Orzammar from outside influences, he reinforces the caste structure that is the foundation of dwarven stagnation, he refuses outside help, he brutally crushes the rebellion of the casteless, and he dies relatively soon without leaving a clear successor. Harrowmont doesn't have any kind of success in the Deep Roads. Even with golems, his only real achievement is a brief war with Ferelden, as the dwarves kidnap humans and elves to create golems.

[Aimi]

None of that is dependent on Orzammar as a lifeline. Orzammar just helps it keep going, but the Merchants' Guild wouldn't be very good if it didn't have its own avenues of procuring items.

And yet Varric continues to talk about the relationship between Orzammar, the Merchants' Guild, the Carta, and the surface in the present tense, and none of that dialogue changes based on the king of Orzammar at the end of Origins, sooo...

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

And yet Varric continues to talk about the relationship between Orzammar, the Merchants' Guild, the Carta, and the surface in the present tense, and none of that dialogue changes based on the king of Orzammar at the end of Origins, sooo...

While I'd pictured all of this happening within a very short time frame, there's nothing technically in the slides saying that Harrowmont couldn't have, for example, outlived Meredith.

[Hair Serious Business]

I always side with Bhelen for one simple reason...as much as he is backstabbing son of b*tch and all...he is competent king.

Harrowmont is kind and good person and he means well and all but he is very incompetent king in fact he proofs to be horrible king.He wants to keep traditions and all trying to keep dwarfs safe as far underground but that leads to contrary results.He has done nothing,changed nothing for his own people.He is full of ideals and promises but he has done nothing as king to prove his competence.

Bhelen on the other hand has done lot for dwarfs as king.He has established good connections with surface dwarfs...which means less "casteless/surface dwarf cr*p"(while Harrowmont never even scratched his a** on this aspect because he went with 'traditions' and if you played dwarf commoner then you know what 'traditions' Harrowmont didn't bother to change)plus he did not give promises that he did not complete everything Bhelen said he would do and change as king he did.

As I already mentioned in one post already...just take example from real life.Would you have leader that is kind and good person but only thing he gives to his country are just empty promises while his action do against good of country and people?Or would you have leader that is scum of person but does knows to lead country and does do for good of country and people?

Honestly I always will chose that scum person that will lead and do some changes for good of my people and country rather then having some goody-idealist that does nothing else but give me promises that he doesn't know to complete. 

[Aimi]

You're concentrating on minor surface details, such as five year plans, the Comintern, and whether Stalin's generally understood motives were his true motives. The important parts are that Bhelen has a similar personality as Stalin had, he ascends to power by similar means, he modernizes his country and makes it more prosperous, he is successful in war, he purges the traditional elites who oppose him, and his reign benefits the common people to some degree.
 
Harrowmont is shown to be a complete failure in the epilogue. He isolates Orzammar from outside influences, he reinforces the caste structure that is the foundation of dwarven stagnation, he refuses outside help, he brutally crushes the rebellion of the casteless, and he dies relatively soon without leaving a clear successor. Harrowmont doesn't have any kind of success in the Deep Roads. Even with golems, his only real achievement is a brief war with Ferelden, as the dwarves kidnap humans and elves to create golems.

 
What you refer to as "minor surface details" are the bread and butter of history, events and policies involving thousands and millions of individuals. What you refer to as "the important parts" are almost completely irrelevant. You see a "basic" similarity between Bhelen's personality and Stalin's. Okay: but you go so basic as to widen that net to encompass dozens and dozens of leaders throughout human (and, undoubtedly, dwarven) history. Like I said earlier, that makes it a bad comparison.

All of that, incidentally, leaves aside further errors in what you have to say. Stalin and Bhelen did not "ascend to power through similar means". Stalin used his command of the CPSU bureaucracy to slowly freeze out and eventually eliminate a host of rivals over several years; his eventual rise to dominance involved nothing so open as a coronation but rather took the form of a recognition of fait accompli: he already controlled the Soviet Union, it's just that Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev hadn't realized it yet. Bhelen has his siblings murdered and exiled, possibly murders his father into the bargain, but can't get anything other than that done and doesn't actually gain power unless he is crowned by the Hero of Ferelden.

And Stalin's purges didn't target "traditional" elites at all. Both Stalin and his enemies were figures of the Revolution, not of the tsarist regime. His party-political enemies, a collection of disparate and mutually loathing cliques, bore no real relationship to the entrenched deshyr aristocracy. And his military enemies came from all origins: former tsarist soldiers that fought for the Reds in the Civil War were condemned along with men who had come up through the Party from day one. Stalin sometimes chose to label these men as "counterrevolutionaries", but that was an obvious propaganda tool, not a statement of objective fact. In fact, the entire concept of the Revolution, a concept central to any attempt to understand Stalin and the other CPSU figures from the Civil War, is absent from the dwarven example.

The rest falls into the "painfully vague" category - either too vague to use as a basis for comparison ("successful in war", lol), or too vague to have a mutually acceptable definition ("modernizes", "benefits common people").

Whereas I have to actually demonstrate how the Stalin comparison is bad, you yourself show how little Harrowmont resembles Chamberlain. Literally none of the things you said about Harrowmont - crushing rebellions, isolation from the outside, creating golems, the caste structure, failing to leave a clear successor - has anything to do with Neville Chamberlain. You could not have painted a more different picture if you had tried.

Look, I'm merely doing what any other historian worth her salt would do if confronted with that comparison: laugh at it. It's really not good at all. I'm not sure why you chose to stick with it and attempt to argue that it was a decent one, rather than either 1. defending it as a spur-of-the-moment top-of-the-head inexact quick hit rather than a legit historical comment or 2. agreeing that it wasn't good and suggesting an alternative that still demonstrates your basic claim that Harrowmont is an incompetent feeb on the wrong side of history whereas Bhelen is a ruthless scumbag who is kind of on the right side of history.
 

While I'd pictured all of this happening within a very short time frame, there's nothing technically in the slides saying that Harrowmont couldn't have, for example, outlived Meredith.

Sure, but then we're deep into the realm of headcanon. If Harrowmont's measures to limit trade and fight wars with Ferelden and whatnot - assuming that they even happen given the dubious canonicity of the epilogues - take place after the time period of the games, do they even matter?

[Jouni S]

What you refer to as "minor surface details" are the bread and butter of history, events and policies involving thousands and millions of individuals. What you refer to as "the important parts" are almost completely irrelevant. You see a "basic" similarity between Bhelen's personality and Stalin's. Okay: but you go so basic as to widen that net to encompass dozens and dozens of leaders throughout human (and, undoubtedly, dwarven) history. Like I said earlier, that makes it a bad comparison.

We're obviously on different levels of abstraction here. You're talking about technical details and administrative processes, while I'm talking about abstract patterns, what the people did, and how they are generally portrayed as.

Of course I have a bias here, because I come from a country that lived under the shadow of the Soviet Union. For my country, Stalin was probably the most important person who has ever lived. When I see a fictional character who looks like a textbook example of a dictator-in-making, I see Stalin, especially if the character supports policies that appear to benefit the common people. Bhelen was obviously Stalin to me on the first playthrough, and the impression only grew stronger on subsequent playthroughs.

As for the Harrowmont comparison, I was referring to Chamberlain the Caricature, not to Chamberlain the Politician. Those two are completely different, much like Quisling the Caricature and Quisling the Politician. Chamberlain the Politician was an obscure figure in the politics of a lesser power just before things got interesting. Chamberlain the Caricature refers to a politician who is a nice and honorable person and possibly a competent peacetime politician, but ignorant of the realities of politics in a time of crisis.

[LadyKarrakaz]

My Aeducan always has Bhelen by her side...

Yes, that's a good name for Dog!

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Sure, but then we're deep into the realm of headcanon. If Harrowmont's measures to limit trade and fight wars with Ferelden and whatnot - assuming that they even happen given the dubious canonicity of the epilogues - take place after the time period of the games, do they even matter?

Assuming that we get some hint that they canonically happen, I'd say they do matter.

[Suketchi]

My Dwarf-Noble was impressed with Bhelen's skills of backstabber-y. Also, she had that whole "Aeducan pride" thing going on... so naturally she went with Bhelen, being the cold, sadistic, heartless, kin-slayer that she was. haha. 

[Sir DeLoria]

A mage siding with the Templars.

I agree.

It's easy to side with the Templars in DA2, the Circle was incredibly vile and corrupt, but there's nothing really speaking against rescuing the Mages in DA:O.

Even my most Templar supporting characters always help the Mages, since you're not actually siding 'against' the Templars.

[Farangbaa]

A Dalish siding with the werewolves.
 
A mage siding with the Templars.

Just did both I head canon my elf Mage to be Dalish (facial tattoos don't really allow this but shush), or at least he thinks he's Dalish.

Sided with the Templars because you can't be sure about what happened to the Mages.
Sided with the Werewolves. Not a single regret. Cause if you do you pretty much give Zathrian a chance to save his people and lift the curse, but the guy just incists that they and their children should be cursed for eternity
And it's just one clan of Falish, not all of them.

[dragonflight288]

Just want to add something, since it's super easy to overlook, and has no real bearing on the current debate. But Harrowmont is the High General for King Enderin, but I somehow don't see how? Is he great at strategy? Is he simply an old warrior past his prime but served with Enderin? Or do the Harrowmonts have a large force and he was a political appointment? Or is he like Maric and Loghain, an old friend of Enderin's? 

 

Never really thought about this until recently while playing as a casteless dwarf in Orzammar.