spoiler Which king is better for orzammar.

[LadyHonor]

I usually side with behlen but do so at the assembly meeting. I hate his sleazy tactics, but think his treatment of the castless is much better than harrowmonts.

[aeroldoth]

A few points:

 

A) Choosing someone based on the epilogue isn't a valid argument, as you don't know what the future will hold.

B) Choosing someone should depend heavily on what you want for the nation, not the candidate's personality or "coolness".

 

With this in mind, the following factors apply to my choice:

 

1) I want the dwarves to survive and prosper.

2) They've been living a certain way, and their cities have been wiped out; they are near extinction. I believe if they don't have a radical overhaul, they will become extinct. It may be that a new way may wipe them out even sooner, but the old ways certainly aren't working.

3) I want to try to avoid letting personal biases affect my decision. I may dislike caste systems, but that's not a valid basis to pick a king. If STARTING a caste system, or slavery, or something else I hate may save the dwarves, then I will support it up to the point it affects other races. Very little is off the table when survival is at stake.

 

With these points in mind, I choose Bhelen as I believe it's mentioned before choosing that he will do something about the castes, and his marrying a casteless goes a long way to linking words with actions. Caste system aside, the casteless are an untapped resource when Orz cannot afford to have a single person not contributing. If Orz is to have any chance of surviving, it needs to approach 100% utilization of manpower. I also restore the anvil, because if the choice is being enslaved as a golem or dying, I think the dwarves deserve to have that choice.

 

My actions alone don't save the dwarves, but they open up several opportunities (anvil, using casteless, allowing everyone social mobility to better suited stations) to improve their chances. I'd gladly feed Bhelen through a cheese grater, but Harrowmont is for maintaining the status quo, and that's a death sentence for the dwarves.

[ladyvoldything]

I usually side with Bhelen, although my Dalish elf and my mages generally go Harrowmont. My human noble is torn- support the accused kinslayer, or the accused usurper?? so many Nobility Feelings.

 

What I really want to do is a Dwarf Noble run where she surprisingly sides with Bhelen all the way through, until the moment she has the crown- and then picks Harrowmont. I feel like the betrayal would be delicious.

[Stopwatch001]

Bhelen. He's a bastard but he'll give the casteless a chance. He'll even marry a casteless which is a very big deal if I'm playing the commoner dwarf.

Aside form that I'm not sure Harrowmount is any less a bastard then Bhelen. Just in a different way.

[AdenYeshua]

To the original topic, Bhelen no question. I've read the reasonings on here, to what could probably be labeled as the most interesting topic on here. Definitely, the topic that deserves the "won't die" award.

The introduction of the word "honor" has been thrown around quite a bit. Though it holds much on this particular subject. I pose this question to all those that cite that "honor" as a reason for picking Harrowmount; what is the point, who cares about Dwarven honor, when faced with extinction?

I'll bundle in "the player doesn't know the outcome so that can't be considered" in this statement to. At the start we know the traditional Dwarven way is -not- working. They have lost nearly all of the deep roads, almost every major kingdom and settlement, are faced with a female infertility crisis, and political infighting as well as oppression of its people. We know before the player even steps through the gate for the first time that if things continue for much longer the last of two Dwarven kingdoms will fall... and that history will reflect your part in that destruction. So saying things like "you don't know that would happen" without endgame content is quite frankly crap. I knew in my very first playthrough choosing Harrowmount would most likely lead to the destruction of at the very least Orzammar. When I was younger I did side with Harrowmount, as I was young and naive enough to preach things like honor. But...

Switching gears for a second relating to my point through growing up, real-life events, and playing Mass Effect 3 of all games. I learned that sometimes you need to sacrifice your ideals for what you think is the greater good, even more, honorable if you risk everything to do it. Would it have mattered (counting all races) if they were good, bad, or indifferent if Shepard decided to not stop the Reapers? When they erased all traces of a civilization did it matter if that Civilization was honorable or not? Does anybody even remember? or told?

Relating to the topic at hand, does anybody here know, or more importantly does it matter if the other fallen Dwarven kingdoms were good, bad, or indifferent? The only thing we are shown is they held to tradition until the bitter end.

Bhelen is better then we are shown, but you have to dig to see it. First, his aspirations, to begin with, being the youngest means he will likely never see rule, he does not need, nor is it necessary to prove his houses honor. Or his honor for that matter. He would have likely lived out his days surrounded by safety, freedom, food, woman, and whatever else his heart desired.

Second Bhelen beliefs are not Logain beliefs. Bhelen is faced with the extinction of his people. Logain is probably the main reason the Darkspawn campaign went so well. Logain would have sacrificed Ferelden for power and glory. Bhelen sacrificed what was necessary in order for real change to happen. When it was done he gave the Dwarven people a real chance at life, many of them the first time. He was a hero to the castless and he held the nobility to the same standard as all dwarves.

​I find it funny the contrast drawn between Hitler and Bhelen. I believe that to be accurate to a point with a twist. Harrowmount and his system is the corruption, and it be the same as if Hitler took over. Bhelen is the man who is killing everyone who supports that regime even if it means his own sister or brothers. Which later he reinstates. That is how the castless see him, and that is how most would in real life if we heard some guy killed all of Hitler's cabinet, and supporters, and all of the Nazi regime. We wouldn't even care how he did it. Most of us would rather not know.

There was simply no other way to get the dwarves off the track they were on. Even sort of standing up for the castless would have gotten you "laughed at and mocked" by the council. Somebody (Bhelen) just decided one day to do something about that. While everybody else was content with letting the ship sink. I also completely disagree the Harrowmount would have gotten it in time. How much more do you need? Your on the brink as it is? You were warned that cutting off ties from the surface would at the very least mean the kingdom would go bankrupt. If there was anything left of the kingdom by the time he got the hint they would open their doors broke, starving, and finding themselves without friends.

Edited October 13, 2017 by AdenYeshua

[Thandal]

Knowing what we (the player) know about the game world and (future) history, Bhelen becomes the obvious "practical" choice for Orzamaar over the long-term. Just gotta hold your nose, cover your ears, and close your eyes.

 

But knowing only what we know about Bhelen, and Orzamaar, and Dwarven culture, while we're in the game as a Dwarf, he's a despicable, grasping toad and gets crushed as he deserves. (Every time but one, just to see. And I've played-through dozens.)

[AdenYeshua]

Knowing what we (the player) know about the game world and (future) history, Bhelen becomes the obvious "practical" choice for Orzamaar over the long-term. Just gotta hold your nose, cover your ears, and close your eyes.

 

But knowing only what we know about Bhelen, and Orzamaar, and Dwarven culture, while we're in the game as a Dwarf, he's a despicable, grasping toad and gets crushed as he deserves. (Every time but one, just to see. And I've played-through dozens.)

 

I disagree with "what we know" what we actually the player knows is the Dwarven empire cannot afford to go the route of tradition any longer. But I agree in at least some part about Bhelen. As far as the warden is concerned. Bhelen believes the blight should be the dwarves only concern. That they must unite to destroy this evil no matter the cost. His intro words. Harrowmount seems to only show a passing interest in the blight. I think Duncan would have even supported Bhelen...

 

Only a Dwarven noble would stand issue. A poor Dwarf would view him as a hero.

Edited October 14, 2017 by AdenYeshua

[skyquest32]

Harrowmont on the issues but admittedly, had I been playing a dwarven noble, I would have gone for the idiot, to get reinstated into my house. Yet I would feel bad, like a tragic villain, because tradition and honor are vital, to the integrity of a society. Yet I would not lose my place altogether in it. I guess in that case, as a noble, I would have to subtly spend my life making up for it.

 

If the dwarves change, it should be gradual and represent an evolution of thought, not at the whim of a radical, and all at once and there should be a need ''not generic perfect world bs''. Some things would not change overnight in the reign of ether one.

 

Yet I believed the prince an unstable Ebenezer scrooge on Christmas morn, a grinning nut job, with a thin coat of paint, and a lot of screwy untested ideas, that only sound good to some but would be unwise to test during a blight/civil war.

 

The Boys father on his death be,d made Harrowmont swear not to let his son rule. He could be a closet loony for all we know, like the dude trying to open the chantry, they would love the free lyruim that would allow for btw!.Oh my yes!

 

Still would have sided with the Golem paragon though...I wished I could have convinced him to live and teach the wisdom of his centuries. His Terminator 2 like death was sad. He could have taught the crafting of wonders, exo-skeltal armored suits, who knows what else...not just golems. Poor Iron man.

 

I got Bankia with a arrow but the other one ran, when I offered to end it as a grey warden would.

 

I would guess she prefers the nasty talk, and eating dead darkspawn and fears death enough to remain a ghoul until she becomes a darkspawn. Well, I respect her right to choose anyway. *grins*

 

She might hook up with Ruk, and open a mom and pop shop, its not unthinkable...albeit unlikely. Besides, when things eventually start to fall off gender wont be much of a issue, nor preference! So there's that. Its the way of Zombies!

 

Together they could give a Homey touch to the dark spawn Armor, and weapons! Maybe ol' Briar rat ''nug?'' Could be the shops mascot. Totally homey, and Dwarven Gothic at the same time! Metal!

 

Also I like shale and though I would have like to listen to Morgan as she always gives wise advise, well almost, it can seem cold but its usually logical pragmatic, given the blight...though I still choose to aid people like the robed family...anyways...keeping the Anvil would have meant letting evil Banka live, nothings worth that, after what she did. Even more dps against the dark-spawn is not worth that. I killed her on general principle, and that in part dictated my choice.

 

I never thought the other paragon should have martyred himself, it was exquisitely stupid and a waste, yet I understand and respect his decision. Oh well shale's happy at least! Probably Ogrhan too, though it would be un politic to not seem ambivalent about it, all things considered, I don't blame him.

 

Oghren in fact, was not even really to fussed about it, poor little guy. That it should come to that in 3 different ways. I would be getting out of the dwarven underground too, if I were him.

[ventisquear]

I don't think Harrowmont is so much better than Bhelen.

• He says the old king, Endrin, made him swear he would not let Bhelen rule - but he was the only one who heard it. How very convenient.
• He 'prefers to be known as a just and compassionate king', but only as far the tradition go. He is known as a traditionalist, ie. supporting the caste system.
• He is an 'able administrator', but that's not enough for a ruler. He knows how to follow the traditions and maintain the status quo, but by the time the Warden comes to the Orzammar, it is a declining state, isolated and with stagnating economy. Harrowont doesn't see it; he has no vision for future, he only cares for here and now - including his political career as a king.

On the other hand, Bhelen:

• Is most like his father. Endrin was the second son and only inherited the throne after his older brother died: Endrin convinced him to fight in the Proving against a convicted murderer, and Bhelen claims Endrin had given the murderer the poison. Even if he didn't do the latter, he is still not without the blame. Endrin knew what he wanted and did what he felt necessary to get it. Why should he hate his son for doing exactly the same? Why should he ask his second to prevent Bhelen becoming a king? After all, it was him who had raised Bhelen to be equally ruthless and shrewed politician as himself.
• Realizes that Orzammar is in a deep trouble, and is determined to make reforms. Reforms are rarely popular, and if the ruler waits for all the citizens to understand what needs to be done, it will not happen - or not until it's too late. It's no coincidence that Bhelen supports the merchants.
• Is popular among people - unlike the firstborn Trian, who is known to abuse the casteless, Bhelen is known to be more benevolent; he's even suspected of favoritism to the castless ("Questions arise regarding Lord Bhelen's impending marriage to a casteless commoner! Favoritism to the casteless suspected!")

None of this should be too difficult for the Warden to learn (after all they have an Orleasin spy in the party). What decision the Warden makes then depends on their own personality and preference, who they think would give more support to the Wardens, etc.

[skyquest32]

I don't think Harrowmont is so much better than Bhelen.

• He says the old king, Endrin, made him swear he would not let Bhelen rule - but he was the only one who heard it. How very convenient.
• He 'prefers to be known as a just and compassionate king', but only as far the tradition go. He is known as a traditionalist, ie. supporting the caste system.
• He is an 'able administrator', but that's not enough for a ruler. He knows how to follow the traditions and maintain the status quo, but by the time the Warden comes to the Orzammar, it is a declining state, isolated and with stagnating economy. Harrowont doesn't see it; he has no vision for future, he only cares for here and now - including his political career as a king.

On the other hand, Bhelen:

• Is most like his father. Endrin was the second son and only inherited the throne after his older brother died: Endrin convinced him to fight in the Proving against a convicted murderer, and Bhelen claims Endrin had given the murderer the poison. Even if he didn't do the latter, he is still not without the blame. Endrin knew what he wanted and did what he felt necessary to get it. Why should he hate his son for doing exactly the same? Why should he ask his second to prevent Bhelen becoming a king? After all, it was him who had raised Bhelen to be equally ruthless and shrewed politician as himself.
• Realizes that Orzammar is in a deep trouble, and is determined to make reforms. Reforms are rarely popular, and if the ruler waits for all the citizens to understand what needs to be done, it will not happen - or not until it's too late. It's no coincidence that Bhelen supports the merchants.
• Is popular among people - unlike the firstborn Trian, who is known to abuse the casteless, Bhelen is known to be more benevolent; he's even suspected of favoritism to the castless ("Questions arise regarding Lord Bhelen's impending marriage to a casteless commoner! Favoritism to the casteless suspected!")

None of this should be too difficult for the Warden to learn (after all they have an Orleasin spy in the party). What decision the Warden makes then depends on their own personality and preference, who they think would give more support to the Wardens, etc.

That sort of thing always sounds good, its the lies of every fantastical revolutionary, but the whole of it is based upon a lie and a obvious manipulation of the have hand have nots. He supports the merchants because he has to.

 

The merchant class has always wanted to be aristocracy, and have always helped to bring down the class the secretly wanted to join under the correct circumstances, but the whole of that is too complicated to get into here and its not so simple.

 

Though, the sort of people who will look at a beautiful family mansion steeped in tradition and see no more than hate or loathing at what the call the excesses, and say such places are obsolete.

 

They will look at the paintings of old masters and feel nothing or at worst contempt and hate. The feel the need to change every story or remake every film to be just as simple mindless, cloned, canned and hypocritical as they are. They are also that insecure and afraid of anything of real power.

 

They respect no culture or people but there own, despite the lies an come to destroy in the guise of love for all, impossibility and delusion. They are nothing.

 

Its the old gospel of the roving warlord or the pocket dictator in the end complete with the hypocrisy. I find it pathetic and ironic.

 

The problem is, with all the good sounding ideas that at first are based on genuine sophisticated principles, but without proper guidance turn to cult like fanaticism and chaos. everything carried to an extreme and indoctrinated into people under the lie that it is in there or there groups on self interest when its not so.

 

''There are no groups btw, just gathering of individuals. Everyone is alone, even among others. Everyman is an island, even if hes very social. The context of what I'm saying here should be considered.''

 

The neo-new age thought that was in part responsible for this otherwise great game, has no beauty in it, no distinction, is anti-life, and I contextualy see no great wisdom in this.

 

To try and maintain some illusion, some connected idea, of life where everything is the same as everything else and therefor worthless, and every pleasure that makes a unique human beings life worth living every distinction or possibly is taken away, even there very identity...all that's left to enjoy is lust, to define oneself by the conventionally bestial, and defend this as good, to identify and defend this,with none of the charm or innate, contextual innocence or grace of such an animal...and even that, is turned crude, and there is very little joy or love left in it. Finally only despair. This is hell on earth...evil. Stupid evil. Pure and simple. Prime-evil, when taken out of context, with no true leadership.

 

People are trying to milk the only thing left to them and hating others who are normal under the guise of being libertarian, isn't that a scream? That is not the point of this philosophy at all by the way.

 

Things are as they are for a reason.

 

Take are own society, don't bother, just set back and watch, enjoy the show as the circus comes to its own end, when horrified others are finally standing back and seeing plainly whats actually threatened, and that its no longer about what its superposed to be about....and things change under the wight of human nature and external circumstances, as the are beginning to do now.

 

Protests are a waste of time and vital energy, I can think of many better things to do that are more worth while, like scratching my rear end, or noticing architectural details at random. I'm serious. It all makes me laugh. This game is just a metaphor of such a simple pattern it requires very little thought at all.

Edited May 20, 2018 by skyquest32