45 réponses à ce sujet

[Rolenka]

Bhelen: A cruel tyrant who believes in reform of the system which put him in power and upward social mobility for the underclasses.

Harrowmont: A benevolent leader who uses religious dogma to maintain the oppression of the downtrodden.

Edit: I never should have written the bit below about parties... it really has little to do with my point.

There's a two-party system in most societies, a right and a left, for a reason. A person who views the world in a certain way is likely to view most (if not all) issues in that way. It's just how they think.

True "independents," who are with one party on some issues and the other on others, are extremely rare, and probably only arise as a result of very unique life experiences. Two in the same election? Come on.

Modifié par Rolenka, 04 février 2010 - 10:39 .

[Creature 1]

Rolenka wrote...
There's a two-party system in most societies

*blinks*  There is?? 

[RangerSG]

Erm...Most societies are just two parties? The statistics would probably bear out that single-party rule is 'most' prevalent. And I wouldn't be surprised if multi-party systems like in Europe are most common than the 2 party system.



Besides, you're assuming modern political forms. Whereas the Dwarven Assembly is much more akin to the old Roman Senate, where factions gather around strong personages, not unified political party ideas.

[Graspiloot]

Maybe there are dwarven laws or their beliefs that prevent parties from existing (edit: the guy who wrote above this one has a good point at that as well).
To me I found it almost symbolic for the choice between democrats and republicans in the USA, I mean both choices are bad, Here, either you get one who will demand too much power for himself and the other who is plain weak and very religious.

It's whats wrong with a two party system really. You end up with two bad choices and you have to pick the least bad one. But that's just my view living in a country with more than two parties.

About the comment that most societies have two parties. Most European countries have not and I'd chose those systems over the American one any day:D

Modifié par Graspiloot, 04 février 2010 - 10:37 .

[Rolenka]

Creature 1 wrote...

Rolenka wrote...
There's a two-party system in most societies

*blinks*  There is?? 

There may be parties of various degrees of right and left... but it's a linear scale.

There are variations of some people who are socially conservative but fiscally liberal, for example, but large parties seldom have such distinctions.

Anyway, if you want to nitpick on just that one point, go right ahead. That's probably the direction this thread is headed now. Only loosely related to my original point...

[eschilde]

Bhelen and Harrowmont aren't really two parties in the sense of having an election. It's one dude, trying to overthrow the other dude who is the king. Their views on politics doesn't really have much to do with it.

[Rolenka]

I was trying to express that the Bhelen and Harrowmont each have directly contradictory positions. It's impossible for one person to think about the world in such drastically different ways.

[maxernst]

I thought there were definite echoes of Ancient Rome in Orzammar, as well. Very often the Emperors that were lionized by ancient historians are the ones that played nice with the Senate (Harrowmont). But often the "bad" Emperors were quite popular with the plebeians (Bhelen).

[maxernst]

No cruel tyrants who want to overturn their societies? You've never heard of Lenin or Mao?

[Creature 1]

Many countries have a multi-party system with several dominating political parties, others have only a single party (because they crush dissent).



I don't see what your original point was. The dwarves aren't dealing with political parties, they're dealing with political figures. They don't appear to have a party system at all. Harrowmont and Bhelen aren't two candidates representing a political party, they're two people with competing claims on the throne. Bhelen's claim is that he should inherit as the king's son, Harrowmont's that he should inherit as the king's appointed successor. They're competing as individuals.

[Rolenka]

maxernst wrote...

No cruel tyrants who want to overturn their societies? You've never heard of Lenin or Mao?

No. But tyrants are seldom the friend of the poor. Bhelen is both. Unlikely.

Unless he is being insincere.

[RangerSG]

maxernst wrote...

No cruel tyrants who want to overturn their societies? You've never heard of Lenin or Mao?

Or Hitler, or Caesar, or the Directorate, or...

sorry, lots of people are willing to use tyranny and bloodshed to accomplish radical societal transformation. And as the Reign of Terror shows, even supposedly libertarian ones.

[Creature 1]

Rolenka wrote...
No. But tyrants are seldom the friend of the poor. Bhelen is both. Unlikely.

Unless he is being insincere.

Have you played the dwarf origin? 

[Rolenka]

RangerSG wrote...

maxernst wrote...

No cruel tyrants who want to overturn their societies? You've never heard of Lenin or Mao?

Or Hitler, or Caesar, or the Directorate, or...

sorry, lots of people are willing to use tyranny and bloodshed to accomplish radical societal transformation. And as the Reign of Terror shows, even supposedly libertarian ones.

Hence my line about insincere.

Bhelen doesn't need to trick people into thinking he's a socialist to gain power. He's already king before he does these things.

[RangerSG]

Creature 1 wrote...

Many countries have a multi-party system with several dominating political parties, others have only a single party (because they crush dissent).

I don't see what your original point was. The dwarves aren't dealing with political parties, they're dealing with political figures. They don't appear to have a party system at all. Harrowmont and Bhelen aren't two candidates representing a political party, they're two people with competing claims on the throne. Bhelen's claim is that he should inherit as the king's son, Harrowmont's that he should inherit as the king's appointed successor. They're competing as individuals.

Exactly, as I said before. It's not a modern Parliament, it's the Roman Senate. Factions form around powerful personages, not political ideas. Members follow the faction that offers them the most, not one that has some great ideology. 

[Rolenka]

Creature 1 wrote...

Rolenka wrote...
No. But tyrants are seldom the friend of the poor. Bhelen is both. Unlikely.

Unless he is being insincere.

Have you played the dwarf origin? 

The Commoner one.

[Creature 1]

Rolenka wrote...
Bhelen: A cruel tyrant who believes in reform of the system which put him in power and upward social mobility for the underclasses.

Harrowmont: A benevolent leader who uses religious dogma to maintain the oppression of the downtrodden.

Since you've changed your post to say you mean the characters are inconsistent. . .

Bhelen:  Has personal motivations for his behavior.  Not inconsistent, anyways, because he may want all dwarfs equal, except some (Bhelen) more equal than others.  

Harrowmont:  What is inconsistent about a polite-seeming person utilizing religion to maintain the status quo?

[eschilde]

Ehm, yeah, I don't really think their positions were contradictory, exactly. Not in an unbelievable manner. Harrowmont seemed more typical for the times, but it's not like there are never radical thinkers out there. Are you trying to say the situation is unbelievable? Sure, Bhelen wanted to let the Casteless be able to do things, but I don't really think he really had a thing about upward mobility, exactly. He wanted improved trade and to be able to use otherwise untapped manpower, things which were kind of important to stop Orzammar from stagnating. Harrowmont was all for stasis. Pretty much progressive vs. conservative thinking?

[soteria]

Hitler loved dogs, apparently.

[maxernst]

Actually, the status quo guys are usually more scrupulous than the revolutionaries. Bhelen (who is NOT king by the way) is never going to be able to change the caste system without running roughshod over the Assembly. In a system where all political power is held by the nobility, it will often take a tyrant to make any sort of egalitarian reforms.

[Xetirox]

The problem is that you're looking at both characters wrong. Bhelen is hardly a "cruel tyrant," nor is Harrowmont a "benevolent leader." What they are, respectively, is a revolutionary seeking to enact radical change (he's the lefty) and a conservative maintaining the status quo (the righty). The system in place gives the upper castes a disproportionate amount of power in comparison to the lower ones (Nobles and Warriors pretty have all say in what goes in Orzammar), so naturally, few of them are willing to allow any sort of miniscule change to take place.

Furthermore, the politics are very cutthroat, with competition for power and prestige going on between and within each house; the only way for anyone to change anything in Orzammar is to be even more cutthroat than everyone else, which is why Bhelen does what he does. And not-so-coincidentally, the only people who really dislike him, who regard him as a tyrant, are the Noble and Warrior castes, because his actions post-crowning subvert the authority they feel they are entitled to. The lower castes, such as the Smiths, Miners, Servants, Merchants, and Artisans? Doesn't matter who's in power to them, they have no say in how things should be run, their lives are really no different from before (though Bhelen's actions bring more benefit to them than Harrowmont's). And rather than take the legal parliamentary measures Bhelen's opponents have to go against him, they try to assassinate him, hence his eventual dissolution of the Assembly. Bhelen is up against a immense amount of resistence and in order to do what he wants or feels he must do, he has to continue to take some extreme measures

Modifié par Xetirox, 04 février 2010 - 11:13 .

[Herr Uhl]

There is also very few kings that rule in the real world now too, why not make a point of that?

Compare to somewhere where there were a senate and dictators *points at ancient Rome*

Creature 1 wrote...
Many countries have a multi-party system with several dominating political parties

Yup, a few big ones and then small ones that ally with the one that gives them the best terms.

[Kiwiya]

Rolenka wrote...

maxernst wrote...

No cruel tyrants who want to overturn their societies? You've never heard of Lenin or Mao?

No. But tyrants are seldom the friend of the poor. Bhelen is both. Unlikely.

Unless he is being insincere.

Actually, tyrants are friends of the poor all the time. Who do you want in your insurgent army: the pampered rich or the armed poor? When you want to change a government, you don't side with the wealthy or the noble. They're well off; they have no reason to want to change the government.
Just look at the Chinese dynastic cycle. Every new ruling faction started out by lowering taxes, spreading the wealth, removing governemnt corruption, rebuilding dikes and freeing up the rich man's land. Each faction ended old, bloated, corrupt, sick and in disrepair. Being a tyrant, being a good person, and doing good things are independent traits; one doesn't exclude or assure either other.
Bhelen is the kind of person who belives what he's doing is right in a violently adamant way. That's not uncommon at all. The only difference between him and the majority of mdoern dicators is that he really *is* right.

[angj57]

Rolenka wrote...

maxernst wrote...

No cruel tyrants who want to overturn their societies? You've never heard of Lenin or Mao?

No. But tyrants are seldom the friend of the poor. Bhelen is both. Unlikely.

Unless he is being insincere.

Tryants arise all the time on the side of the poor. Elite groups hold power in society; they are unlikely to support a tyrant who will take that power for themselves. Poor and underprivillaged classes have no power in society, so why should they care if the power goes from being in the hands of elite families to being in the hands of one man? If that man wants their support, he can win it easily by giving them concessions and promises.

Caeser was supported by the Roman people and distrusted by the senate. Napoleon won his power by gaining fame as a general and celebrity status with the people. Hitler's base were the lower-middle class unemployed, the elites only joined later. Mao and the CCP obviously had the support of the people and not the upper classes. Orzamar is a caste-based oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, so people shouldn't try and draw comparisons between their personal factions and modern political parties or between Bhelen and Harrowmont and the Democrats and Republicans.

The political setup in Orzamar makes perfect sense. The old guard nobles are the ones in power and the only ones who benefit from the caste system and dwarven stagnation. Of course they will support someone who wants to stick to traditions and respect the current setup.  Bhelen wants the assembly's power to himself, so it is natural that he would ally with progressive elements that want to change the current oligarchical power structure. The elite nobles (at least the ones he is unable to bribe or blackmail) will always oppose his attempts to reduce their power, so his obvious choice is to win over the masses with reforms.

Kiwiya wrote...

Bhelen is the kind of person who belives what he's doing is right in a violently adamant way. That's not uncommon at all. The only difference between him and the majority of mdoern dicators is that he really *is* right.

Well, I think Bhelen is a sociopath. Everything to him is about Bhelen, not about morality or anything else. That is why he is willing to kill even his own brothers. But he is also intellegent and can see that
a) reform is a weak link in the decaying Orzamar society that he can exploit to gain power, and
once he has gained political power, reform will make his kingdom more powerful and prosperous
therefore he supports reform. Harrowmont is the one who is bound up in ideas of morality, tradition, etc. Ironically, but as often happens in politics, these ideals keep him from getting anything done.

Modifié par angj57, 05 février 2010 - 01:27 .

[RangerSG]

Bhelen is not doing what he believes right. Ask around, you'll hear the truth. "Bhelen only cares about winning." Bhelen is using popularity with the mob to garner wealth and influence so he can bully the Assembly. To do that, he is willing to talk about reforming, and maybe even do some of it so that the dwarves can find enough troops to retake the Deep Roads.



But Bhelen's path has nothing whatsoever to do with compassion or caring about the plight of the casteless. It's all about money, influence, and power.