45 réponses à ce sujet

[Creature 1]

RangerSG wrote...
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.

It actually has to do with one particular casteless. 

[maxernst]

RangerSG wrote...

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.

But that's just other people's opinions.  How do you know they're not saying that because they've heard it from Harrowmont's people.  And aren't most of the people who voice that opinion nobles? 

Personally, I'm far more willing to believe Bhelen has an agenda beyond power than Loghain.

[Cuddlezarro]

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.

have you played as a casteless dwarf? hes doing all the reforms and stuff because of your sister

[draxynnus]

I suspect the OP should probably be reading this. Consider Stalin and Hitler - both were dictators, but one is far left and the other is far right. Your views on how much control the government should take over the economy and on how much they should take over social affairs can be entirely different things (in fact, if they weren't, you'd expect the left side of politics to be producing the dictators, since the left side of politics believes more in government control over the economy while the policy of the far right is to leave the economy alone.)



I don't know if it's deliberate, but it looks almost like the OP is pushing a "the right side of government naturally leans towards tyranny" which is patently not true - although it IS true that a government that leans far enough to the right can be pretty tyrannical when it comes to what business leaders can get away with. On the other hand, we have plenty of examples in history of socialist tyrannies.



Even outside that, you can have views that don't necessarily line up nicely with either side of politics. For instance, I lean right when it comes to general economic issues (at least by Australian standards) but left when it comes to environmental issues.

[soteria]

News of the hour: Harrowmont is a ... uh... WEAK man, and would make a weak king!

[Grossbard]

Elves and dwarves could never exist as real people but what do you know they're in this game too

[Lord Phoebus]

I did get a bit of a Caesar/Pompey vibe from Bhelen/Harrowmont. Not so much from a personality stanpoint but in terms of their roles (Caesar/Bhelen are going to give the people what they want in return for power, Pompey/Harrow are going to play to the senate for power). In Rome there had always been class conflicts, but the republican government still worked until the assassination of the Gracchi and Marius' Civil War. Rome achieved some stability under Sulla, but really at that point it was already too late; the Patrician government was only serving itself, the people were ready to revolt (for a third time) and they just needed a general. If it was Caesar or another general, sooner or later someone was going to offer the people what they wanted and launch a civil war that did destroy the republic. Caesar used the popular cause to boost his political career, if the Senate didn't force his hand he probably wouldn't have marched on Rome, but they did and when he won he pushed through a ton of social reforms. Pompey also wanted power, but he thought he could use the Senate to get that power.



Similarly, in DA:O the dwarven government has failed. The politicians serve themselves instead of their people and they're giving up ground to the Darkspawn. They need a change or they're going to die and that change is only going to come from a strong leader. Whether Bhelen is acting for selfish or selfless reasons is irrelevant, his powerbase is the castless, so he's going to improve their lot and bring about the social reforms the Dwarves sorely need. Harrowmont also wants power (he might have even killed the king), but like Pompey he's relying on the existing system for support.

[ComTrav]

Bhelen has SO MANY historical parallels. You have lots of reforming dictators. Ataturk, Cromwell, and Bismarck are the first few that come to mind...it's not uncommon for some dubious guy to take power and use it to support the people. (A lot of times it gets out of hand...this is why the framers of the American Constitution were so afraid of demagogues and the 'tyranny of the majority'.)



And the above posters Roman analogy is intriguing.



And Harrowmont I just see as tradition-bound and incompetent.

[Kaoschizm]

Hi

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.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Joseph_Stalin

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

http://en.wikipedia....s_XVI_of_France


I'm sure there are better comparisons but those were the first that came to mind.

[a1021]

bhelen actually reminds me a lot of stalin. harrowmont would be trotkzy in that case and endrin lenin. endrin wanted to avoid bhelen becoming king, because he was too cruel. bhelen executes his rival upon taking power, dissolves the last remains of democracy and becomes the loved dictator. and is he really doing that much for the casteless? he allows them to join the army and marries a casteless himself. that's not so different from the relationship stalin had with the "working class". i think bhelen is a very realistic depiction of a politician who could exist in real life. after all, orzammar is hardly a democracy to begin with and can't be compared with modern western societies...

[kormesios]

Both of them have a ton of historical parallels, as others have said. They certainly aren't independents, they are just living in societies were the norms make you react differently.

Bhelen could be many cruel and/or determined radical reformer, depending what how you think of him (or them) from Cromwell to Ataturk or a thousand in between. I'll bring Mohammed Ali Pasha of Egypt, who ended a caste system there of sorts and started massive reforms. One key act: inviting the aristocracy to celebration, and then slaughtering them. http://en.wikipedia....ad_Ali_of_Egypt

Harrowmount's type is especially common in monarchies, a ruler who's fond of others but doesn't have the imagination to even think about changing the system. It's how they grew up, all their friends would lose if there was a revolution, and they like their friends . . . very common, and often tragic. So Louis XVI, as said above, is a good example.  You could also think of the stereotype of the Southern (US) gentleman, pre-Civil War, who would be kind on an individual basis but would also fight energetically to maintain slavery, because that's how things were done.

Modifié par kormesios, 05 février 2010 - 09:03 .

[Xetirox]

RangerSG wrote...

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.

'Cept he's really not all that popular with the mob either. Most in the lower Castes are either indifferent to who leads, or favor Harrowmont. Granted, he's not really hated among them, but nor is he popular, really the only guy not on his payroll who likes him is the one merchant, Legnar. And the Casteless, who end up benefitting the most? Either apathetic or oblivious to who's running things, because as far they're concerned, no one cares about them.

And ignoring the issue of caste, listening to the two criers can reveal a few things as well. The one favoring Harrowmont villifies Bhelen for supposedly wanting to institute a  draft ("News of the hour: Support Lord Bhelen at your peril! Evidence suggests Lord Bhelen considering widespread military draft!"), while the one favoring Bhelen claims that he's ready to take more action ("'A new offensive is required against the Darkspawn,' says Lord Bhelen"). Of the two, it sounds like Bhelen is taking the Darkspawn threat much more seriously, and I'm personally of the opinion that most of the change he's enacting is because of that. Not to mention when you finally meet him, he states he is fully willing to combat the Blight (if memory serves me correctly, pretty much before you have a chance to open your mouth), and that there needs to be union in Orzammar to do that, whereas Harrowmont states his intention of continuing to play nice with the rest of the Assembly, fully proving this.

[maxernst]

Hmm...that's something that didn't occur to me. Perhaps part of Bhelen's desire to shake up the caste system is to allow Orzammar to field a larger army than the warrior caste could provide.

[Sabriana]

Another point to ponder is the receding birth rate of the dwarfs. It always struck me as strange that a people that are threatened by extinction through low birth-rates would actively cast out and deny members of their society.

In a society like this, every single dwarf should count, they simply can't afford to cast any aside when they could become useful in social, economic and defense affairs.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

The US is not completely a two party system. There are many other political parties, it's only the two big ones that get most of the press, and thus, support. But you still have many smaller, but influential parties, like the Libertarian party, for example.



Bhelen vs Harrowmont is similar to the communist revolutions of old, in many ways.

[kormesios]

maxernst wrote...

Hmm...that's something that didn't occur to me. Perhaps part of Bhelen's desire to shake up the caste system is to allow Orzammar to field a larger army than the warrior caste could provide.

Historically, the advantage of recruiting directly from "casteless" types is that they answer directly to the king. As long as the army is recruited and led by noble houses, you can't really ignore what the nobles want.  If you have your own army, though, you can accomplish a lot without them.

It could easily be a little of both--Bhelen sincerely thinks the dwarves need a larger army, knows he won't get the nobles to do what he wants, so recruiting lets him solve the first problem *and* oppose the nobles.

This is why I think he's a well designed character.  Like a lot of similar figures, it's impossible to tell if he's motivated by love for his people to make his kingdom stronger, or if he wants a stronger kingdom simply because his only ambition in life is to be a powerful king.

[Zugin]

So next step is Marian reform? *drool*

This would actually make a TON of sense.. honestly if Bioware takes the Dwarfs that way I will be incredibly happy.

Their characters make sense. What does not make ANY sense is that Bhelen manages to create a vast conspiracy to support himself, being a completely unproven commodity.. very few noble houses would risk getting involved in a mess he created. Noble story just is not realistic in how pulls it off, it relies on pretty much everyone (King, PC, Trian, many at the top of the Assembly) being total morons..

It would have made a ton more sense if he was a proven general at least. Leader like him would not rise from nothing. All of the Roman leader's of his type were legendary soldiers and generals proven by years or even decades of war. The original populist who mobilized the Roman mob (name escapes me..) was the first over the wall of Carthage if I remember correctly a proven hero of the republic

Modifié par Zugin, 06 février 2010 - 09:05 .

[draxynnus]

Zugin wrote...

So next step is Marian reform? *drool*

This would actually make a TON of sense.. honestly if Bioware takes the Dwarfs that way I will be incredibly happy.

Their characters make sense. What does not make ANY sense is that Bhelen manages to create a vast conspiracy to support himself, being a completely unproven commodity.. very few noble houses would risk getting involved in a mess he created. Noble story just is not realistic in how pulls it off, it relies on pretty much everyone (King, PC, Trian, many at the top of the Assembly) being total morons..

It would have made a ton more sense if he was a proven general at least. Leader like him would not rise from nothing. All of the Roman leader's of his type were legendary soldiers and generals proven by years or even decades of war. The original populist who mobilized the Roman mob (name escapes me..) was the first over the wall of Carthage if I remember correctly a proven hero of the republic

That's actually an interesting point... Bhelen would possibly had worked better if he was the second child, and thus been old enough to have made something of a name for himself (which, presumably, he hasn't since the dwarf noble origin story is supposedly the first time the dwarf noble has led troops into combat).

Everything else could then have worked out unchanged - his motive for pinning Trian's death on the dwarf noble could be explained by Bhelen killing two birds with one stone - shifting the blame from himself and getting rid of the individual most likely to go after him.

[ruudg]

i saw a standup commedian once, and he had this pretty spot on joke about pollitics.



left and right is like a bowl of **** looking at itself in a mirror.

[Baalzie]

RangerSG wrote...

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.

Uhm that is what you hear from OTHERS yes, have You catually put Bhelen as King and read the aftertexts?
HE is the one that makes Orzammar profit from surface trade. He DOES give the casteless and surfacecaste better livingstandards.
HE opens up Orzammar for new ideas and for the betterment of most in Orzammar, not just the Noble caste.

Harrowmont closes Orzammar from the surface isolating Orzammar. He rakcs down hard on the lower castes and cements the Noble catse's power over the lower orders.
He acts tyrannically as superb ruler over the Isolated bacwards Orzammar that is the result of his actions as King...

So please, do NOT state things You BELIEVE from not having the full story as facts please...
Harrowmont LOOKS like the "good" guy but becomes a despotiocal tyrant, while Bhelen Lies and rough his way to power but becomes a benevolent (In comparison atleast) king who makes for betterment for most in Orzammar...

It's all in the choices You made and the epilogue tells You the ACTUAL results, not the gossip on the streets while You're there...

[Demonic Spoon]

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...

What do you expect to happen? The entire premise of your post is just wrong. Peoples' political views can't be summed up on a one-dimensional scale, and existing political parties reflect that.

Going to take a stab in the dark and say you're from the US...there's a two party system in the US because a variety of factors (the electoral vote system being one of them) come together to make third parties nonviable. In other democratic nations (Europe, Canada) there's several viable parties at once.

Modifié par Demonic Spoon, 06 février 2010 - 03:42 .