85 réponses à ce sujet

[mfr001]

 

<snip>

 

Final point: I don't think you understand what the word "monarch" means. It is not an earned position, it is hereditary. There is a reason why it is not considered an effective system of government. You are one death away from a roll of the dice as to whether your next leader is capable, or not.

Minor correction. "Hereditary" or earned by promoting the previous incumbent to the great throne room in the sky. The aforementioned promotion typically involving poison, sharp instruments or a red-hot poker. This has the advantage of ensuring that monarchs who have no sense of self-preservation, or just no sense, are less likely to have successors with the same failing.

 

Inheritance through the right of "Last Sibling Standing" also works quite well at dealing with the family members less suited to controlling a kingdom. Would that it were still a requirement.

 

Edit. Just to add, I do not find Bioware's monarchs unconvincing, except that in general they seem more competent than many actual monarchs. Louis the Pious and his sons show just what sort of clowns you can end up with as monarchs, not to mention being the ultimate in disfunctional families.

[Wulfram]

Bioware are obsessed with pandering to the player's ego. Everyone must think the protagonist is the awesomest thing since sliced bread, so leaders treat them as equals or defer to them. And if they fail to adequately acknowledge the PC's awesomeness, we get to punch them in the face without consequence like Space Loghain.

Though I do think Anora has a decent amount of royal presence to her, even if she still suffers from Bioware's inability to depict skilled politicians.

Also, I think the OP is thinking too much of the exalted "divine right" monarchies that are more typical after the middle ages, while medieval monarchs that were often more or less "first among equals" with the nobility. Though Orlais often seems more 17th century then Medieval, so that's not necessarily unreasonable.

[Exalus]

Celene wasnt weak, she was playing the game and you were now the leader of a rapidly growing organization that has either the templars or the mages under your belt and a defensible fortress in the mountainside. Eventually though, you are essentially able to decide the fate of all orlais in a single conversation wheel which is somewhat questionable.

 

The romance sub plot with Briala made her so much more likeable. 

[Vox Draco]

Best video-game-monarch? He sums leadership up like noone else ... too bad he reaps what he sows so fast in the game ^^

 

 

 

[Grimez7]

I agree. The kings in the witcher 2 definitely fit the description you made. I haven't met any monarchs in dragon age that commanded that respect.

[tmp7704]

In my experience Anora was convincing in a role of effective ruler, and Celene came across as a competent "steel fist in very soft glove" character manipulating/playing along with the DAI protagonist where it suited her, which made lot of sense for Orlais. The monarchs you bring up as not convincing, I'd argue this is actually part of their characters (Alistair, Gaspard etc are said they'd be ill-suited for this role) and as such, a good writing instead of bad, if they manage to create such impression in you.

[HerrComrade]

 

When I meet a monarch I expect to meet a person who has a totally different view of the world than the average joe, a detached person with grandiose ideas , arrogant about his power because of the rule  "the King always gets what he wants".

 

While I feel that biowares writers have developed increasingly poor and unconvincing characters, monarchs are going to come in all range and variety of people because at the end of the day, they are people.

 

Guy of Lusignan succeeded as King of the Holy Sepulcher by marriage to Sibylla; even with the backing of Richard Lionheart he couldn't retain enough support against Conrad of Montferrat, was abandoned by Richard and the barons voted Conrad as king. Hereditary inheritance isn't a guarantee either - succession politics are some of the messiest and convoluted history you can read about.

 

In that same era and locale, Saladin, one of the better known Islamic princes in history, is attributed with generosity and benevolence to pretty much everyone, provided they weren't insulting pricks like Reynald de Chatilion, a man who fits in more closely with the definition of a monarch as an unapproachable and distant *******.

 

I thought the entire Orlesian courts part of DA:I was torturous. "The Game" was absurd and felt like it was shoehorned in. Bullstomping through had zero effect on the outcome - I felt like I could have set fire to the throne room, taken a dump on the Empress and set a bunch of Mabari loose into the scene and people would have at best shuffled aside where necessary and continue to brazenly plot in barely hushed voiced.

 

I also felt that the choices you were left with were ridiculous. Given the opportunity I'd have just declared war on Orlais because I considered every last one of their primary political leaders to be as over the top villainous as the Sheriff as played by Keith Allen - who is f*cking brilliant, but not someone you'd ever align with unless you were also a diabolical sociopath.

 

All in all I think the monarch characters in these games, with the possible exception of Alistair whose development can be seen firsthand, are poorly written because they're a bunch of tryhards. As in, rather than be defined by any actual characteristics they're defined by attributes as they apply to The Game - oh she's brutal and cunning and will stop at nothing but she has to do that in the confines of The Game. No she ****** doesn't, she can go balls out crazy in the throne room and slaughter everyone, not wait until she's cornered by a fountain. They lacked any depth or dimension beyond their roles in The Game and really appeared to be interchangeable with just about anyone. I can't even remember the name of the Duke or the Auntie or whoever the hell the others were, they were so forgettable as individuals in their roles to me.

 

Sorry, probably TL:DR required.

[Realmzmaster]

Bioware writers are as knowledgeable on monarchs and aristocracy as the next guy in N-America. 

 

Which is to say, next to zero. 

 

So you know what knowledge that Bioware writers possess? You know how much knowledge about monarchs I know or many of the others from N-America on this forum. I believe that most if not all writers research their material to bring them up to speed. But keep on insulting people you know absolutely very little about.

[Phoe77]

I feel like we don't get to see enough about the Ferelden monarchs to really judge their abilities or suitability as rulers.  Cailan acts like a bit of a doofus at Ostagar and did make a pretty big blunder there, but do we know that he wasn't at least competent aside from that?  I know people say that Anora was better at and more interested in all that stuff, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Cailan was a bad ruler.  Of course I could be forgetting things.  

 

I even sort of question Alistair's lack of suitability as king.  Sure he wasn't ready for it during Origins, but he doesn't seem to have made a mess of things by the time of Inquisition even if he's left to rule alone.  It seems like he grew into his position to me, even if he did keep his particular brand of charm while doing so.

[AutumnWitch]

You are not taking into account that Thedas is vastly different from earth. You are imposing your earthly and some what silly notions of how nobility should act in a fantasy world.  Do you know how they really act in Thedas? The way they are portrayed in the games. It is what it is and David and the rest of the writers are under not obligation to follow your or anyone else's ideas of how Thedas should be.

[atlantico]

So you know what knowledge that Bioware writers possess? 

 

I know what they put to paper, are you saying they don't make their best effort?

 

You know how much knowledge about monarchs I know or many of the others from N-America on this forum. 

 

 

Surprise me!

 

I believe that most if not all writers research their material to bring them up to speed. 

 

 

Do you base that on the representation of monarchs in the DA games and how that correlates with your own knowledge of the matter?

 

But keep on insulting people you know absolutely very little about.

 

 

That's a very far fetched claim. 

 

 

It is what it is and David and the rest of the writers are under not obligation to follow your or anyone else's ideas of how Thedas should be.

 

 

Bingo!

[Aaleel]

I thought Cailan came across just like Bioware wanted him to. Young, brash, inexperienced, wanting to come out of the shadows of past kings and make his own place in history. He was going to do this at Ostagar and no one could tell him otherwise.

That's why I don't get the whole he didn't seem in charge complaint. He was going to have that battle regardless of what anyone said because it was his way to glory and his place in history.

Also if you're a Cousland, he says Howe is going to pay and when I'm done here I'm going to turn my army north and make him pay. Sounded like he was in charge to me. Even still you can't base what kind ruler he was based on that one military moment, he's not a general or skilled in the ways of war.

But all Monarchs aren't going to be strong, charismatic, competent leaders that's the nature of the beast, you get who is next in line whether they're ready to wear the crown or not. So I really couldn't say what a Monarch is supposed to act like.

[k1rage]

I am not asking for an effective king. Even horrible, bad kings feel like kings because of arrogance. They should not behave like you are an equal to them. Horrible kings are arrogant and take no advise. All I am asking for is to have a feeling that I am standing in front of a monarch, wither good or bad.  The 4 second video I posted above managed to convene this to me without event knowing wither he is a bad king or a good king.

 

How do you know what kings and royalty are like? have you ever met any?

 

wait is this Prince William?

 

come on buddy fess up, playing dragon age is what you do when you get time away from Kate. isn't it, isn't it. Yeah you know it is lol

[In Exile]

The Arishok. That's your monarch. The fact that he eschewed the title is beside the point. He behaves in exactly the fashion that you want.

[Arakat]

Bioware writers are as knowledgeable on monarchs and aristocracy as the next guy in N-America. 

 

Which is to say, next to zero. 

 

I think Canadians, at least, know something about monarchs. 

[Feranel]

So... Bioware fails at writing fantasy cliche monarchs?

 

I'll take it.

[aries1001]

If you (by choice) make Anora Queen of Ferelden in DAO, and then play Awakening, you get to see a very (short) appearance by her. And in this appearance she's oozing of queenlike wow, shock and awe. She's comporting herself as befits a queen or in more plain English, she's clearly behaving like the Queen of Ferelden. As for Cailan, well, Cailan, was, as I see it, a mere boy who thought anything was, no, not a joke, but more of game, really. And by that I mean that to me Cailan always to play King, not being one.
His thoughts of war comes from tales of old and of grey wardens.....and armies who battle in honour and glory. In his final moments, he eventually realizes 'there is no glory in war'. Also, Anora tells us that it is really she who has ruled Ferelden all along....

Loghain, I see, as a ruthless man. A man who would do anything for an idea, the idea being a unified Ferelden. And who did what he did in order to prevent Ferelden to once again be ruled by the Orlesians....

[Qoojo]

Bioware fails at writing convincing Monarchs or Queens.

 

Good thing queens can't be monarchs, otherwise the title itself would be a "fail".

[Emperor Iaius I]

If you (by choice) make Anora Queen of Ferelden in DAO, and then play Awakening, you get to see a very (short) appearance by her. And in this appearance she's oozing of queenlike wow, shock and awe. She's comporting herself as befits a queen or in more plain English, she's clearly behaving like the Queen of Ferelden.

 

What's funny about that is she's a commoner. Yes, yes her father was made a teryn -- but come on now, her grandfather was a farmer. She's not real royalty. But that's perhaps telling: she didn't take it for granted, she wasn't bored or spoiled by it, and she knew that the monarch had to lead the country. She ran things for Cailan, and then by herself if you make her queen. Barely part of the aristocracy, yet better royalty than the line of Calenhad.

 

-- that is, of course, if you consider the arch-doglord to be royalty at all.

[atlantico]

I think Canadians, at least, know something about monarchs. 

Because the queen sometimes drops by? 

 

 

So... Bioware fails at writing fantasy cliche monarchs?

 

I'll take it.

 

No, because Bioware only writes fantasy cliche monarchs. And you will take it.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Charles Dance could make a squirrel a convincing monarch. It really comes down to the VA I believe, and how they convey the character. Celene on paper isn't so bad, it's just the execution in game.

[In Exile]

 

Because the queen sometimes drops by? 

 

Because our entire system of governance is predicated on there being a monarch. 

[Han Shot First]

Best video-game-monarch? He sums leadership up like noone else ... too bad he reaps what he sows so fast in the game ^^

 

 

 

Foltest is who immediately came to mind for me while reading this topic as well. He's probably the best warrior-king written for a video game. My favorite scene with him as the interaction with his common soldiers:

 

 

"What say you, Excellenacy, of men who live in spite of such wounds?"

[JJDXB]

Not sure if serious, but...

 

Cailan was weak, and therefor deposed by Loghain, who was anything but "cute."

 

Alistair wasn't King. While he could conceivably become one through certain choices, it was part of the story that it wasn't a role that he was suited to. Anora could be argued to be "cute," but if you genuinely don't think she had the ability to rise to that level of power, then you're probably playing the wrong RPG, entirely.

 

Celene made perfect sense, given the context of the land she ruled. She wouldn't have made sense in Ferelden, but in Orlais, she was the one who best understood the game.

 

Duke Gaspard wasn't a king, and his efforts to become one had failed. Only through taking specific actions could he have been made one.

 

Final point: I don't think you understand what the word "monarch" means. It is not an earned position, it is hereditary. There is a reason why it is not considered an effective system of government. You are one death away from a roll of the dice as to whether your next leader is capable, or not.

 

I agree with everything except your last point.  Monarchs don't have to be hereditary.  There is such a thing as an elective monarchy.  Poland used to be one, the Vatican still is.  You still rule till you abdicate, are killed or are deposed, but you don't have to inherit the throne.

[tmp7704]

What's funny about that is she's a commoner. Yes, yes her father was made a teryn -- but come on now, her grandfather was a farmer. She's not real royalty.

Nature vs nurture argument. She basically grew up treated as royalty and pretty much never really knew any other life afaict. So she acts like one, easily, and is as "real" royalty as any other.