84 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Uh. it's been 30 years since the war. You're talking a span of some 500 or 600 years from medieval to modern times. (I don't consider modernity to be all that civilized, either, but that's another topic.) Maric was not a great reformer, but he established a relatively peaceful country out of the chaos of occupation and revolution. I also think you're oddly cherry-picking who you consider heroes. Calenhad united the clans, but he was not a great social reformer either, and Fereldan history continued to be turbulent.

Bhelen is a tyrant. He is instituting his reforms at the end of a sword. Maric was not like that, and Fereldans don't respond very well to such a heavy hand anyway- as Loghain finds out.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Addai67 wrote...

Uh. it's been 30 years since the war. You're talking a span of some 500 or 600 years from medieval to modern times. (I don't consider modernity to be all that civilized, either, but that's another topic.) Maric was not a great reformer, but he established a relatively peaceful country out of the chaos of occupation and revolution. I also think you're oddly cherry-picking who you consider heroes. Calenhad united the clans, but he was not a great social reformer either, and Fereldan history continued to be turbulent.

Bhelen is a tyrant. He is instituting his reforms at the end of a sword. Maric was not like that, and Fereldans don't respond very well to such a heavy hand anyway- as Loghain finds out.

 

Not only that, but Ferelden is not united enough as a country to really start enacting social reforms. Kinda hard to do so when half of the leadership of the country does what it pleases, and the majority of the country is beholden to an externally based religion.

The dwarves are different, in that they had a pretty old, well established and ordered society. And they were far mores stubborn/entrenched in their traditions to change, hence the need for sword-point reforms.

But as you pointed out, Fereldens are different, their social and power structure is very different. Sword point reform wouldn't work, one would have to use other, more subtle methods. But the country would have to be united then, and everyone on board with the crown, if it wanted to make reforms that lasted. Something I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon, if DA2 is anything to go by.

[WhiteKnyght]

Addai67 wrote...

Bhelen is a tyrant. He is instituting his reforms at the end of a sword. Maric was not like that, and Fereldans don't respond very well to such a heavy hand anyway- as Loghain finds out.

The dwarven assembly and royalty enforced their traditions at the end of a sword too, how is that any better? They execute for little to no reasons, send assassins after their enemies and deny any responsibility. Do dirty dealings behind closed doors.

At least Bhelen's changes improved the lives of the casteless, who were prejudiced against and mistreated for no reason other than some worthless ancient tradition that says they deserve it. It brought more trade to Orzammar strengthening the economy, as well as brought them more aid against the darkspawn which helped them push them back and recover a lot of their old Thaigs.

If Harrowmont was elected the gates to the outside would never open again, the old prejudicial laws and traditions would become even more heavy handed than they usually are, and Orzammar would end up completely isolated and die off from eventual inbreeding and a losing battle against the darkspawn.

[Anihilus]

I just started DA:O and saw Loghain walk out on everyone at Ostagar. Please tell me I get to kick his sorry backside sometime during the course of the game.

[WhiteKnyght]

You get to kick his arse then cut his head off.

To quote Cailan, glorious!

[Addai]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Bhelen is a tyrant. He is instituting his reforms at the end of a sword. Maric was not like that, and Fereldans don't respond very well to such a heavy hand anyway- as Loghain finds out.

The dwarven assembly and royalty enforced their traditions at the end of a sword too, how is that any better? They execute for little to no reasons, send assassins after their enemies and deny any responsibility. Do dirty dealings behind closed doors.

I usually choose Bhelen, too, but don't see the situations as comparable.  Bhelen also institutes a ruthless totalitarian rule.  You obviously think a bloody, absolutist monarchy is fine as long as the under class gets some scraps.  I don't.  Nor do I see it working in Ferelden.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Bhelen also institutes a ruthless totalitarian rule.

*rolls eyes*, yes. Bhelen is instituting a society under complete surveillance. With everything, even the Dwarves' private life, under the direct and absolute control of the state. With children being sent to Bhelen youth. And with one party under one ideological commitment. And let's not forget the massive personality cult being instituted. 

<_<

You can limit yourself and just say "authoritarian". "Tyrant" if you want. It's better than using anachronistic words that do not apply at all. 

And yes, Maric does not come even close to being worth a hair from Bhelen's beard.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 mars 2011 - 10:24 .

[Addai]

What a surprise.

totalitarian - characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control
-Princeton Dictionary

Modifié par Addai67, 18 mars 2011 - 02:57 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

What a surprise.

totalitarian - characterized by a government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control
-Princeton Dictionary

You are seriously going to use one line, a wrong one at that, to define a political concept that has entire scholarship dedicated to define it?

Totalitarianism is a modern phenomenon. That is characterised by the complete and absolute control of all public AND private life, or the aspiration to achieve it. It's a term coined by Mussolini to describe his project. Everything, from education, to media, to ideology, to even basic values, are to be defined by the State and its leader.With a project to create a "new man", all defined by the state. That's Totalitarianism. Nothing to do with Bhelen. 

Like Nathaniel, I am not a fan of over-simplification and that definition you provided is extremily over-simplified. No one who really understands what totalitarianism is, would confuse it with authoritarianism or even 18th century absolutism.

So I feel I need to step in and correct this.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 mars 2011 - 03:33 .

[Addai]

I'm not having this discussion.

[WhiteKnyght]

The Epilogue for Bhelen states that he strengthened Orzammar's connection to the outside world, offered the Casteless new rights in exchange for military service against the darkspawn which allowed them to take back some of their Thaigs from the darkspawn. But this angered the warrior and noble castes(too busy looking down their noses at the casteless from their pedestals too see it was a smart decision). After they tried to assassinate him several times, he decided to dissolve the assembly and rule alone. It doesn't say anything about him turning into Big Brother on the dwarves.

[Addai]

Bhelen was already investigating ways to dissolve the assembly, using the Blight as a pretext, before the Warden even shows up.

And again, the situation is not comparable. Ferelden already has a more enlightened legal system than the dwarves. All Bhelen does is help the dwarves catch up. What does this have to do with Maric?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

I wouldn't say it's that much more englightened than the dwarves. About the only thing better about it is that it is not as rigid as the dwarves, and the freeholders are more important to the system than commoners are to the dwarves. Beyond that, it's the same idea: Landsmeet/Assembly is an exclusive nobles-only club, and the surface has a sort of caste system, if you figure in the treatment of elves and mages.

As far as Bhelen being a tyrant goes, about the only thing I'd consider tyrannical in his epilogue is if the anvil is spared, he sends his political enemies to become golems. That certainly counts, though opinions may vary on that. But dissolving the Assembly? Even though he was planning it well before the Warden arrives, it still didn't bother me that much. The assembly was filled with self-interested nobles who put themselves before Orzammar, and the city suffered for it. With Bhelen, it's really a difference between one authoritarian ruler, and 80 of them. And even though the assembly goes, the nobility is still there. They get to keep their houses and their wealthy, they just no longer get a say in the running of the city. And going by the scene in the Assembly when the Warden first visits, its better that way.

I do not think reforming the assembly at this point is even possible, because the people in it are a bunch of short sighted, selfish idiots who care more about their contracts and prestige than saving their people. The assembly could only be reformed if the dwarven nobility changes, something I do not see happening unless by force or catastrophe.

[Addai]

Well as Fenris might say about blood magic, no one denies that absolutism has its uses. That's my point. Maric might have been able to push through the sort of sweeping social change the OP thinks Ferelden should have if he had dissolved the Landsmeet, killed any opposition, and ruled with an iron fist. He was not that kind of ruler. So long as the Fereldan kings are more measured, any social change in Ferelden will be gradual and they will only have limited ability to influence the process.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Assembly being dissolved does not mean that Bhelen does not surround himself with a council of experts or an advisory council. They may lack power (and seeing what they have done with it, they shouldn't have any), but they can still have an input.

And there is nothing enlightened about Ferelden's legal system when a simple duel can overturn a vote. It's little different from the Provings, where it's also there to settle disputes. What is more developed in Ferelden, which can serve as the basis for its evolution into a modern centralized state, is the importance of commoners and the middle class, proto-nationalist sentiments and the idea that the king is the first servant of the state / nation. All it needs is to weaken its nobility. And while their idiocy might justify their complete annihilation, better and more prudent methods can and should be adopted. The alternative is unfeasible and counter-productive. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 mars 2011 - 03:15 .

[Addai]

Oh yes, Bhelen is going to keep anyone around him who is not a yes man. Ha ha.

Dueling is an honorable historical tradition to settle disputes that can't be settled otherwise, as in the case of the game Landsmeet. Of course, I don't think Ferelden needs to become a "modern centralized state."

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

Oh yes, Bhelen is going to keep anyone around him who is not a yes man. Ha ha.

Dueling is an honorable historical tradition to settle disputes that can't be settled otherwise, as in the case of the game Landsmeet. Of course, I don't think Ferelden needs to become a "modern centralized state."

Why wouldn't he? Sure, he may not allow someone who is only going to criticize. But I can see him having experts who unlike others, actually know what they are talking about.

"Honorable" here just means that there is no rule of law, if an almost unanimous vote can be overturn by a stupid duel, as if physical strength makes your point more valid. Not that different from just pulling a coup. Except a coup at least requires strong leadership and some planning. Here, any idiot with enough physical strength can dictate what he wants because he won a duel, even if everyone voted against him.

No need to embellish it with "honor" and "tradition". Some traditions can and are idiotic and irrational. That's one of them. 

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Addai67 wrote...

Well as Fenris might say about blood magic, no one denies that absolutism has its uses. That's my point. Maric might have been able to push through the sort of sweeping social change the OP thinks Ferelden should have if he had dissolved the Landsmeet, killed any opposition, and ruled with an iron fist. He was not that kind of ruler. So long as the Fereldan kings are more measured, any social change in Ferelden will be gradual and they will only have limited ability to influence the process.

Yeah, I see your point now. Yeah, social changes usually need to be gradual to minimize revolt and resistance to change, something Maric couldn't reasonably do right after the civil war. The country was already shaky. Maric pulling a Bhelen would have ruined everything, I think. I mean, look at the Chantry. Maric and Loghain wanted it gone, but knew Andrastism was too deeply entrenched in the national conciousness, that forcibly removing the Chantry would have been a major blunder.

The situation in Orzammar was very different, as is the culture and structure of dwarven society, so it's hard to compare evenly. But I see your point with the OP.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Yeah, I see your point now. Yeah, social changes usually need to be gradual to minimize revolt and resistance to change, something Maric couldn't reasonably do right after the civil war.

Yes and no.
Yes, that he couldn't pull a Bhelen. Orzammar is different from Ferelden and it requires gradual reforms.

However, I think those reforms could have started almost immediately after the war of independence. Remember that Maric was seen as a hero. He had immense legitimacy at that point. That is also crucial in any succesful reform package. Unpopular leaders seldom succesfully reform anything.

His options were indeed limited and the last thing he needed was a civil war right after fighting Orlais. But there are things he could have done. After reperations and the like, expand trade. Since he had a military genius with him, start reforming the army a bit. Reforming armies after victories is a lot easier than reforming them after defeats. But he apparently didn't do anything.

He did keep the peace. Or rather it's Loghain, Rowan and the Therein name that kept the peace. So he was not completely useless like say Harrowmont. But I feel he could have done more than what he did.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 mars 2011 - 03:49 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


Yes and no.
Yes, that he couldn't pull a Bhelen. Orzammar is different from Ferelden and it requires gradual reforms.

However, I think those reforms could have started almost immediately after the war of independence. Remember that Maric was seen as a hero. He had immense legitimacy at that point. That is also crucial in any succesful reform package. Unpopular leaders seldom succesfully reform anything.

His options were indeed limited and the last thing he needed was a civil war right after fighting Orlais. But there are things he could have done. After reperations and the like, expand trade. Since he had a military genius with him, start reforming the army a bit. Reforming armies after victories is a lot easier than reforming them after defeats. But he apparently didn't do anything.

He did keep the peace. Or rather it's Loghain, Rowan and the Therein name that kept the peace. So he was not completely useless like say Harrowmont. But I feel he could have done more than what he did.

Whose to say he didn't try and expand trade? Though it's never specifically mentioned, alot of issues are never specifically mentioned, but it does not necessarily mean he did not attempt. From the sounds of the Epilogue after TST,  he and Rowan had their hands full trying to rebuild the country and keep the fickle and petty nobility from starting a civil war over something stupid. Maybe Maric did work on developing trade, but could really only do so much with what little he had to work with. It's not like Ferelden has much money to buy anything at that time, nor do they seem to have many resources and products with which to sell. They would be in a better positions to serves as a sort of middle man between the dwarves and surface customers, since orzammar opens up into their territory.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Seeing how Anora managed to fill the Crown's coffer right after a devastating blight and a civil war, I'd say Ferelden is capable of engaging in trade fairly well and generate income.

It's not explicitly mentioned. But I'd think prosperity or an increasing wealth would be something that would have been mentioned had it happen. And if any policies were made, which produced limited results at best, it's probably Rowan's work and not Maric.

I don't think there's much difference between Ferelden under Maric, and Ferelden before Orlais. Except a commoner becoming the Teyrn of Gwaren.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 18 mars 2011 - 04:55 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Seeing how Anora managed to fill the Crown's coffer right after a devastating blight and a civil war, I'd say Ferelden is capable of engaging in trade fairly well and generate income.

It's not explicitly mentioned. But I'd think prosperity or an increasing wealth would be something that would have been mentioned had it happen. And if any policies were made, which produced limited results at best, it's probably Rowan's work and not Maric.

I don't think there's much difference between Ferelden under Maric, and Ferelden before Orlais. Except a commoner becoming the Teyrn of Gwaren.

No, there's definitely not any fundemental difference between Ferelden before and after Orlais, other than many of it's original noble families were wiped out. Which, while it sounds good, considering that the majority of of the nobility are a bunch of ****s, actually isn't when you think about. It was the nobles who were dangerous to Orlesian occupation and dominance that were wiped out, and it was mostly spineless syncophants with loyalty as reliable as Ferelden's weather. Most of those who remained and to be bullied or bribed into fighting with Maric. So if anything, the nobility in Ferelden post-occupation is probably even worse in that case, making things even more difficult.

When the majority of your ruling class is so shifty they have to be coerced into saving their country from outside invasions and securing a potentially better future for themselves and their people, something is fundementally wrong there.

As far as Anora goes, she takes power 30 years AFTER Ferelden is liberated. 30 years is enough time to reasonably develop a better economy and things to trade. As smart as Anora is, if Ferelden were as economically weak as it was when Maric took power, she herself would not have been able to refil the coffers so quickly.

The Orlesians did not just occupy Ferelden, they raped, pillaged, and carried off alot of its wealth, and had been doing so for 70 years. Anora takes a country that has been soverign and developing for 30 years, and the Blight/civil war only lasted a year, with no mentioned serious long term loss es of wealth or resource mentioned in the game. I think the Orlesians did more to wreck Ferelden than the Blight did.

Again, there was really only so much Maric could do. From the sounds of it, given the state of Ferelden immediately post-occupation, Ferelden did, at least economically, come back from that reasonably well. If you were hoping for something spectacular, then I think Ferelden will always disappoint, as it is not a nation really interested in anything spectacular.

[Xilizhra]

Didn't the Blight stay in the Korcari Wilds until nearly the end?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Xilizhra wrote...

Didn't the Blight stay in the Korcari Wilds until nearly the end?

Yep. And as we saw when the Warden goes to the deep trenches, the Archdemon was still undergound with the bulk of the horde. (And seeing how the AD is basically a corrupted god of beauty, it probably stayed undergound so long to make sure it's scales were shiny, claws manicured, and was properly accessorized for armageddon.) The actual start of the real Blight for the surface was basically right around or after Landsmeet, when the actual Archdemon and the main horde emerged from the Deep Roads.

So in effect, Ferelden's more crucial regions, like the Bannorn, were unefefcted until the very end, and it was so brief that the centuries long devestation of other past Blights didn't happen. The Civil War caused more devestation and disruption to Ferelden than the Blight did, ironically enough. And, unlike the Blight, the divisions within the country will continue to plague it for decades.

Modifié par Skadi_the_Evil_Elf, 18 mars 2011 - 06:02 .

[WhiteKnyght]

Well the United States started out as colonies under British rule but we revolted, won our independence just as Ferelden did, and we arguably had a lot less to work with and were facing an enemy just as big and powerful. And when we won the war we wrote our own laws and did things our way, the same that Maric could have done when he defeated Orlais. It took a civil war to end slavery, and a lot of protests to gain more equal rights, but it wouldn't have happened at all if nobody had cared to try. It's not necessarily that change comes in small steps, it's that nobody in Ferelden who can change things cares to.

An easy way to prevent nobles from rebelling in Ferelden would be to pass a law forbidding them from having their own private armies and simply stationing soldiers that are loyal to the crown in their territories to defend them. If nobles are petty children do they really need to be given dangerous toys?

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Didn't the Blight stay in the Korcari Wilds until nearly the end?

Yep.
And as we saw when the Warden goes to the deep trenches, the Archdemon
was still undergound with the bulk of the horde. (And seeing how the AD
is basically a corrupted god of beauty, it probably stayed undergound
so long to make sure it's scales were shiny, claws manicured, and was
properly accessorized for armageddon.) The actual start of the real
Blight for the surface was basically right around or after Landsmeet,
when the actual Archdemon and the main horde emerged from the Deep
Roads.

So in effect, Ferelden's more crucial regions, like the
Bannorn, were unefefcted until the very end, and it was so brief that
the centuries long devestation of other past Blights didn't happen. The
Civil War caused more devestation and disruption to Ferelden than the
Blight did, ironically enough. And, unlike the Blight, the divisions
within the country will continue to plague it for decades.

Actually
if you pay attention to the world map the blight spreads out through
the course of the game. By the time you've gotten the third treaty
fulfilled it covers over half of Ferelden.

Modifié par The Grey Nayr, 18 mars 2011 - 06:32 .