515 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Helios969 wrote...
One can learn the latter, but I don't see how anyone can be forced to want to rule.  It seems to me that if one is lacking desire, this is almost certain to breed apathy.  It's hard to imagine how an apathetic ruler can be effective.

So the most grasping and power-hungry makes the best ruler?

[mousestalker]

Actually that's nonsense. Some of the best leaders have gained power because they didn't want the other guy in charge. Hardened Alistair is that way. Teddy Roosevelt got his start that way. George Washington was not especially power hungry and he was a great President.

[krylo]

mousestalker wrote...

Actually that's nonsense. Some of the best leaders have gained power because they didn't want the other guy in charge. Hardened Alistair is that way. Teddy Roosevelt got his start that way. George Washington was not especially power hungry and he was a great President.

S'what I was saying.

The people who don't want power usually end up as the best leaders.

[Vicious]

I, for one, find it unnerving how similar unhardened Alistair is to Cailan.

[krylo]

Vicious wrote...

I, for one, find it unnerving how similar unhardened Alistair is to Cailan.

Why?  They're brothers.

It makes perfect sense they'd be somewhat similar.

[Urazz]

Alandros wrote...

Bratt1204 wrote...

krylo wrote...


Also, he's already a better ruler than Anora five seconds after being named king.  Anora tries to get him executed if she is queen, even though he's one of the last Grey Wardens alive and would be riding off to fight the Blight.  Alistair, on the other hand, has her locked in a tower and officially names her heir to the throne if he dies fighting the blight.

One of them is showing a bit more wisdom here, and it's not Anora.

Exactly.

That's debatable.  A hardened Alistair seems to be a good ruler in the Epilogue slides, but it seems pretty apparent that if he's not hardened he is a very bad governing ruler, which suggests he leaves it to Eamon or the Bann's to have their own way without doing his job.  While Anora is stated as already being a good ruler for 5 years and in the slides she continues to be a good one (if not perfect).

Basically, Alistair when he isn't hardened is well loved by the people but not that good of a ruler.

When he is hardened Alistair actually tries to learn to become a better ruler and still is well loved by the people but doesn't run off to see them as much due to his duties.

If Alistair marries Anora while not hardened, he ends up doing the same thing when he isn't married to Anora but Anora rules things well.

I think the best option is having a hardened Alistair married to Anora because both get hailed as well loved and great rulers and it seems Ferelden prospers the most with both of them together in this fashion (about equal to the human female noble pc marrying Alistair and he becoming king if I recall).  Not only that but it seems like Alistair isn't opposed and freaked out on marrying Anora in this option if I recall if you congratulate him on his engagement after the landsmeet.

[Yrkoon]

Helios969 wrote...

It's amazing how much genuine hate a video game character can foster. The way this thread is rolling along, it'll rival the Zevran one in no time. Who would have thought little old Anora could have this affect on so many people. You'd think she was Sarah Palin or Nancy Pelosi with the amount of zealotry in this thread.

That's a sign of really good story writing.

[Xandurpein]

krylo wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

To me the only sensible course of action is to have Anora and Alistair marry.  Anora has the political skill and will, and Alistair has a good heart and a strong morale compass.  It also satisfies both sides of the blood vs. marriage rights debate and gives the greatest amount of legitimacy going forward.  If it's about what is best for Fereldan, stability would seem like the best approach.  If it's about what is best for our individual characters, then either way you decide to go is valid.
If the game had forced me to choose between Anora or Alistair, I'd have chosen Anora.  Anora wants and knows how to rule.  Alistair does not want to and lacks leadership experience.  One can learn the latter, but I don't see how anyone can be forced to want to rule.  It seems to me that if one is lacking desire, this is almost certain to breed apathy.  It's hard to imagine how an apathetic ruler can be effective.

Actually in every real world example I've seen, from politicians to cops to lowly forum administrators and debate club captains--WANTING to rule means you will be a ****ty ****ty ruler in most cases and not wanting to and having the power thrust upon you tends to mean you'll be a good ruler.  There are exceptions, of course, but it all comes down to the psychology of ruling... well, anything.

Ruling a country is full of cons and very very few pros if you're going to be fair and even handed about it.  You take responsibility for the people, you take responsibility for the economy, you take responsibility for the military.  You have a lot of work to do and you're going to be the one catching all the flak if something goes wrong--even if it's not actually your fault.  You have to be able to control nobles and peasants alike, and it's just basically a huge pile of ****.

The only pro?  You have power.

People who want to rule, therefore, want power.  Why does anyone want power?  They want to use it.  When a ruler, or a policeman, or anything else ENJOYS using their power, there's a very good chance they'll turn into a despot, using it irresponsibly.

Those who don't want the power, however, are less likely to abuse it.

Someone who doesn't want it won't necessarily be apathetic.  In fact the opposite is true.  They don't want it because they care about the people and are afraid they'll muck it all up.  Someone who DOES want it is far more likely to be apathetic, because they care for furthering their own power, and often that comes with a 'and the people can just go right to hell' attitude.

This only barely pertains to the discussion at hand, but I felt like pointing it out, all the same.

I have seen countless examples of the exact opposite of what you claim. People who are wonderful characters privatly, but absolute disasters as leaders, because they are just to timid to make a decision, or too lazy to learn all the facts before they make a decision.

There are enough politicians in the world who just want power to rub their ego, but do you honestly think that the good ones aren't politicians because they want to be it? Take almost any job you can think of and the ones who are doing it best will probably be the ones who enjoy doing it, because they will put their soul into it. The sheer work it takes to learn all the facts before you make a decision in running a country is enormous. If you don't enjoy it, you'll likely just learn enough facts to go by and miss things that could have put your decision in a whole new light.

Having guilt or a forced sense of duty replacing actual zest for a job, will just a likely skew your perception and ability to the job weill as wanting it for the perks, the appearance and nothing else.

Now some politicians (a lot of them it seems) don't want to lead the country, they just want the perks and ego boost, but the good politicians are the ones who want to lead, because they feel strongly about what they think will make the world a better place and think they can do it. Enjoying power and enjoying leading is two very different things.

So what type is Anora? Maybe a bit of both in all fairness, but I don't doubt that she is genuinly convinced that she would make a better monarch than Alistair for Fereldan.

The way the characters are written it's obvious to me that Alistair and Anora complement each other in many ways, and the best solution is to have them run the country together, so Alistair can temper Anora a bit. Or a human noble can take upon the other role in the pair I suppose, if they have the right attitude, i.e. a king who can make Anora see more human aspects of ruling, or a Queen to do all the boring hard work to actually run a country for Alistair.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 25 février 2010 - 08:33 .

[master-fluff]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The other nobles do not regard Anora as being a noble since her father was a commoner and Alistair has a better claim to the royal bloodline. Also the minute Loghain is stripped of his title, it does not fall to Anora. The Teryn must have the backing of the arls, banns and freeholders in the area.

I have no doubt that some of the long-established nobility of Ferelden will consider Anora a lesser person than themselves because she's just a first generation noble. Bit like those who consider you're a lesser american if your family didn't come over on the Mayflower, etc.  It's human nature to try to deny others priviledges/status that you enjoy and want to keep to yourself.  Nonetheless, she is a noble at the Landsmeet regardless of any snooty nobles who consider her little more than an uppity strumpet.

But I completely agree that Alistair has a much stronger claim to the throne than Anora or a Cousland.  IMO the best choice is a hardened Alistair whose not saddled with Anora or a Grey Warden.  It allows the country to have a queen who could bring new alliances into play AND gives a better chance of a future Theirin heir.  Love marriages and/or brides of questionable fertility are not a luxury usually afforded to kings.

Modifié par master-fluff, 25 février 2010 - 10:41 .

[Tony_Knightcrawler]

Agree with OP.

[Xandurpein]

master-fluff wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

The other nobles do not regard Anora as being a noble since her father was a commoner and Alistair has a better claim to the royal bloodline. Also the minute Loghain is stripped of his title, it does not fall to Anora. The Teryn must have the backing of the arls, banns and freeholders in the area.

I have no doubt that some of the long-established nobility of Ferelden will consider Anora a lesser person than themselves because she's just a first generation noble. Bit like those who consider you're a lesser american if your family didn't come over on the Mayflower, etc.  It's human nature to try to deny others priviledges/status that you enjoy and want to keep to yourself.  Nonetheless, she is a noble at the Landsmeet regardless of any snooty nobles who consider her little more than an uppity strumpet.

But I completely agree that Alistair has a much stronger claim to the throne than Anora or a Cousland.  IMO the best choice is a hardened Alistair whose not saddled with Anora or a Grey Warden.  It allows the country to have a queen who could bring new alliances into play AND gives a better chance of a future Theirin heir.  Love marriages and/or brides of questionable fertility are not a luxury usually afforded to kings.

The fact is that Alistair has zero legitimate claim to throne, because he is an illegitimate bastard. Maric never aknowledged him so his claim is absolutly none. The Landsmeet can in effect pass a ruling that changes him to a legitimate bastard and this gives him legal status as heir, but that is just politics discounting the law really. If Anora was only Queen-consort and the law says she is not in any way in line as heir (I have yet to see any dev say either way on Anora's claim) then legally neither of them has any claim at all, and it's all down to politics.

By the way, according to "The Stolen Throne" Loghain's father was knighted by Maric, so it didn't begin with Loghain. And there is no mention in the game of Loghain being stripped of his title or lands, even if he is killed. Anora is even still a possible heir if Alistair becomes King.

[nos_astra]

Xandurpein wrote...
If Anora was only Queen-consort and the law says she is not in any way in line as heir (I have yet to see any dev say either way on Anora's claim) then legally neither of them has any claim at all, and it's all down to politics.

There is no other way as for her being queen-consort. The whole system is based on who you swear fealty to. You can't have two rulers because that's a possible threat of civil war. If Cailan says A and Anora says B - who do they follow?

Since there is no legitimate heir both have a weak claim if they even have any. It's certainly not very clear ingame.
Especially when you have Alistair marry Anora - who's the ruler, who's the consort? By what Alistair says when he's totally pissed (because Loghain lives or was sent to kill the AD) Anora is queen-consort again, yet the game lets her do the rallying speech and the eulogy at your funeral, right?

Modifié par klarabella, 25 février 2010 - 12:06 .

[Ken555]

krylo wrote...

Vicious wrote...

I, for one, find it unnerving how similar unhardened Alistair is to Cailan.

Why?  They're brothers.

It makes perfect sense they'd be somewhat similar.

half - brothers but yeah.

[Herr Uhl]

Ken555 wrote...

krylo wrote...

Vicious wrote...

I, for one, find it unnerving how similar unhardened Alistair is to Cailan.

Why?  They're brothers.

It makes perfect sense they'd be somewhat similar.

half - brothers but yeah.

What if their mothers were long lost sisters, they'd be cousins too.

[Helios969]

Addai67 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...
One can learn the latter, but I don't see how anyone can be forced to want to rule.  It seems to me that if one is lacking desire, this is almost certain to breed apathy.  It's hard to imagine how an apathetic ruler can be effective.

So the most grasping and power-hungry makes the best ruler?

Yep.

[nos_astra]

Helios969 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...
One can learn the latter, but I don't see how anyone can be forced to want to rule.  It seems to me that if one is lacking desire, this is almost certain to breed apathy.  It's hard to imagine how an apathetic ruler can be effective.

So the most grasping and power-hungry makes the best ruler?

Yep.

Our sweet Alistair comes in two flavors
- unhardened --> unwilling to rule and to learn, the outcome depends on his luck to let the right people do his job
- hardened --> reluctant but willing to do his best - turns out quite well, the rule seems more balanced

Anora comes off as
- grasping and power-hungry - her rule seems a bit unbalanced, rioting starving elves and a university, as far as I know.

I think there's some wisdom in these outcomes. Willingness is certainly a good thing.

Modifié par klarabella, 25 février 2010 - 12:04 .

[Kaliban101]

And there is no mention in the game of Loghain being stripped of his title or lands

There's one mention of it. If you have Loghain and Zevran in your party:

• Zevran: So, err...is it Lord Loghain?
• Loghain: I am no longer a teyrn, nor even a knight.
  Address me without a title, as you would any other Grey Warden.
• Zevran: So just Loghain, then.

[master-fluff]

Xandurpein wrote...

The fact is that Alistair has zero legitimate claim to throne, because he is an illegitimate bastard. Maric never aknowledged him so his claim is absolutly none. The Landsmeet can in effect pass a ruling that changes him to a legitimate bastard and this gives him legal status as heir, but that is just politics discounting the law really. If Anora was only Queen-consort and the law says she is not in any way in line as heir (I have yet to see any dev say either way on Anora's claim) then legally neither of them has any claim at all, and it's all down to politics.

By the way, according to "The Stolen Throne" Loghain's father was knighted by Maric, so it didn't begin with Loghain. And there is no mention in the game of Loghain being stripped of his title or lands, even if he is killed. Anora is even still a possible heir if Alistair becomes King.

True in English history.  Bastards, acknowledged or not, do not become monarchs.  Well except William the Conqueror.  And Arthur, if the legends are true and he really existed   However, Fereldens say Alistair has a legitimate claim and in my 2 runthroughs I don't remember anyone saying he didn't because he's a bastard child of Maric.  So I still think he has a stronger claim than a dowager queen or a Cousland given the long established bloodline tradition.  But agree that it's all opinion unless a dev pops in to give us the law.

To your last point, usually being knighted and becoming a Sir/Ser doesn't give any heredity title/nobility to the knight's offspring. 

[Helios969]

klarabella wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...
One can learn the latter, but I don't see how anyone can be forced to want to rule.  It seems to me that if one is lacking desire, this is almost certain to breed apathy.  It's hard to imagine how an apathetic ruler can be effective.

So the most grasping and power-hungry makes the best ruler?

Yep.

Our sweet Alistair comes in two flavors
- unhardened --> unwilling to rule and to learn, the outcome depends on his luck to let the right people do his job
- hardened --> reluctant but willing to do his best - turns out quite well, the rule seems more balanced

Anora comes off as
- grasping and power-hungry - her rule seems a bit unbalanced, rioting starving elves and a university, as far as I know.

I think there's some wisdom in these outcomes. Willingness is certainly a good thing.

It seems to me too many people are operating on the gift of foresight.  Lacking that, there is only one logical choice.  Being an effective ruler takes more than a big heart, at least it does in the real world.  Sometimes you have to make cold decisions.  The worst kind of decision is one plagued by indecision.

He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command and it is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.  Niccolo Machiavelli

[Xandurpein]

Kaliban101 wrote...

And there is no mention in the game of Loghain being stripped of his title or lands

There's one mention of it. If you have Loghain and Zevran in your party:

• Zevran: So, err...is it Lord Loghain?
• Loghain: I am no longer a teyrn, nor even a knight.
  Address me without a title, as you would any other Grey Warden.
• Zevran: So just Loghain, then.

That's because he was made a Grey Warden. Grey Wardens give up all their herdeitary titles and become just Grey Wardens, which is incidentally why it's a bit of a loophole that Alistair or a Human Noble can become monarch. It doesn't follow that the whole family loose their titles, just because one of them become a Grey Warden.

[Xandurpein]

Helios969 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...
One can learn the latter, but I don't see how anyone can be forced to want to rule.  It seems to me that if one is lacking desire, this is almost certain to breed apathy.  It's hard to imagine how an apathetic ruler can be effective.

So the most grasping and power-hungry makes the best ruler?

Yep.

Our sweet Alistair comes in two flavors
- unhardened --> unwilling to rule and to learn, the outcome depends on his luck to let the right people do his job
- hardened --> reluctant but willing to do his best - turns out quite well, the rule seems more balanced

Anora comes off as
- grasping and power-hungry - her rule seems a bit unbalanced, rioting starving elves and a university, as far as I know.

I think there's some wisdom in these outcomes. Willingness is certainly a good thing.

It seems to me too many people are operating on the gift of foresight.  Lacking that, there is only one logical choice.  Being an effective ruler takes more than a big heart, at least it does in the real world.  Sometimes you have to make cold decisions.  The worst kind of decision is one plagued by indecision.

He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command and it is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.  Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli was a very bitter person who posted his opinions in a book. It's not the truth.

[Helios969]

Xandurpein wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Helios969 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...
One can learn the latter, but I don't see how anyone can be forced to want to rule.  It seems to me that if one is lacking desire, this is almost certain to breed apathy.  It's hard to imagine how an apathetic ruler can be effective.

So the most grasping and power-hungry makes the best ruler?

Yep.

Our sweet Alistair comes in two flavors
- unhardened --> unwilling to rule and to learn, the outcome depends on his luck to let the right people do his job
- hardened --> reluctant but willing to do his best - turns out quite well, the rule seems more balanced

Anora comes off as
- grasping and power-hungry - her rule seems a bit unbalanced, rioting starving elves and a university, as far as I know.

I think there's some wisdom in these outcomes. Willingness is certainly a good thing.

It seems to me too many people are operating on the gift of foresight.  Lacking that, there is only one logical choice.  Being an effective ruler takes more than a big heart, at least it does in the real world.  Sometimes you have to make cold decisions.  The worst kind of decision is one plagued by indecision.

He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command and it is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.  Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli was a very bitter person who posted his opinions in a book. It's not the truth.

He is considered the father of modern political science and was mandatory reading long ago when I was a history major.

[Addai]

Helios969 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Helios969 wrote...
One can learn the latter, but I don't see how anyone can be forced to want to rule.  It seems to me that if one is lacking desire, this is almost certain to breed apathy.  It's hard to imagine how an apathetic ruler can be effective.

So the most grasping and power-hungry makes the best ruler?

Yep.

A fine appreciation for tyranny, have you?  This may work in a country full of serfs, but a country full of proud nobles needs an Arthur, not a czar.

I was a history major, too.

P.S. And if you mean to suggest that what Ferelden needs is a Machiavellan ruler, that is obviously not Anora, either.  Ms. "my father is doing what is best" hasn't exactly shown well for herself as her country descends into civil war.  Perhaps you're wishing for an option to put Howe in charge?

Modifié par Addai67, 25 février 2010 - 04:08 .

[nos_astra]

Addai67 wrote...
 Perhaps you're wishing for an option to put Howe in charge?

I have a vision: Endless discussions on the forums about how Howe is misunderstood and only did what he thought was the right thing ... for himself, of course - but honestly can you blame him? He's really frustrated.



Edit: Just kidding, of course. I wouldn't put Howe in the same pot as Anora or Loghain.

Modifié par klarabella, 25 février 2010 - 04:18 .

[soignee]

This whole thread is a brilliant read, I love the reactions Anora spews forth from people.