Some of the other entries, I might attribute to snippets overheard in surrounding conversations. My point is that it's not unheard of for perfectly normal people to be able to set aside their emotional responses in order to view a situation from an objective perspective. The Wardens actually live in Thedas. We do not.
In order for any of them to achieve the kind of objectivity we have they'd need to have emotional detachment on a level so high it would actually be pathological. That is anything but perfectly normal. The dwarves are better off if Bhelen is king. Bhelen is the better choice. The Wardens can come this conclusion, for a variety of reasons. But if they do so totally divorced from morality and emotion, they are sociopaths.
Exactly - they live there, we don't. None of us are steeped in any of Thedas's cultures. We're all guessing here. I don't think this objectivity requires that kind of extreme detachment. Unless you're a dwarf, how much genuine emotional attachment are you going to have to these people? You need an army to fight an archdemon and save the world. As the commander of that army, you need some level of objectivity or else you'll never be able to risk anyone and everything will be lost.
You're right. I'm not saying they need to approach the situation with a Tranquil's level of emotionless logic.
However, they can have that sort of view without the extremism of being pathological or a sociopath. Is it easier to choose Bhelen over Harrowmont as an all-knowing player? Is it harder to choose between them as a clueless Warden?
I'm not so sure the Warden has to be that ignorant. I think we're basically agreeing at this point. But at this point it's merely a debate over what is meant by objective. A non-objective person can still make a rational choice.
I find it more likely that non-dwarf, non-evil Wardens would pick Harrowmont, but I'm not going to rule out all situations were they do not. Unlike Hawke and to a lesser extent the Inquisitor , the Warden is as much the player's creation as Bioware's, so the number of potential Wardens is at least as great as the number of potential players, and probably many times greater.
I hardly believe, they have any power now - when I killed them after canceling the curse, they were very, very weak, no aid in battle will be from them. As my favorite role was a dalish elf, I made Zathrian to cancel the curse and die a normal pay for lying and using another dalish for his own plans and then - I killed all shems for they smart plan to attack and kill my people.
I can not say this way is "good", but I think - the fairest one. To kill Zathrian after is bad - the curse will be removed only from these hunters, and some of werewolves can make troubles in future.
The elves don't get justice, and if you did kill the werewolves then she would be just as happy, this would not be fair to the werewolves obviously. If you think about it if they didn't have any combat experience then why does Swiftrunner have a shield? I have started a new topic. And as for Jesus, the bible is all about vengeance. I believe that is NOT a relegion forum. Please show respect And I think Harrowmont is "good" because Bhelen set a trap for The Warden in the Dwarf Noble origin and sent him to deep roads to sit on the throne.
He also assasinated Prince Trian. It doesn't make Harrowmont good, or Bhelen bad per se. Harrowmont is a nice guy but he is too wrapped up in Dwarven tradition to be a good leader and do what is best for Orzammar.
Bhelen may do what is in the best interest of Orzammar but he doesn't go the best way about it. In his defence there is probably no other way to go about it but he is still morally wrong. Besides I am on about justice not vengeance. So you don't think that Bhelen's ideal may be a united Orzammar, a perfect Orzammar that the caste system and the assembly is abolished. That would make Bhelen a dictator and an idealist to an extent.
He could be dangerous but yet again he could be the best thing that happened to the Dwarves, it all depends. Did anyone stop to thiink that the old king, bhelen's father was perhaps not a good person?
Aedan Cousland. You are being ridicules now. First the quote itself has no implication about what justice and revenge is, just what this famous mangaka things about justice and revenge.
I respect him, and I believe that his views are much more complex then you want to do him credit for, because everything I have seen and read about Naruto moral dilemmas and the purpose of being have been a returning subject.
I find it both fascinating and wise the way he picture the many characters and that which moves them. I believe WarPaints analysis is closer to the truth, but again it would only be closer to what he says, not to what justice and revenge actually is.
You are arguing with your emotions. It fundamentally boils down to this:. Then instead of just saying that, and thereby admitting to yourself and others that it is just a matter of your feelings, you try to justify A.
That is invalid as it just put your arguments on the foundations as the quoted person, and he is no foundation in himself. He may or may not have used a valid source of justification, but if he did that, you can just go directly to his source instead of merely quoting him.
I personally have a hard time putting Harrowmont on the throne. Sure, he's more honest than Bhelen, but in the epilogue he further divides the castes, whereas Bhelen brings new glory to the dwarves. He may have been a conniving backstabbing cur to get the throne, but once he's on it, I really think he's the better king by far. If you save the Anvil of the Void this is even more evident, as it corrupts Harrowmont, he ends up doing the surface raids to kidnap humans and elves, wheras Bhelen bans use of the forge, and Branka has to do her own raids without him knowing.
Most people seem to be basing their positions on what the epilogue says about the consequences of the decision, but this is not a valid line of argument. Support for either Bhelen or Harrowmont must be based on the information provided ingame if you going to be serious about this being an RPG. Different playthroughs provide different perspectives. For instance, should you follow either the Shifting Allegiances or Betrayed from Within questlines, supporting Bhelen definitely becomes more problematic as one uncovers definite evidence of his unsavoury and dishonest character.
Nonetheless, all questlines still provide arguments for either choice. Dwarf Commoners will almost inevitably choose Bhelen, while Dwarf Nobles will surely back Harrrowmont, while non-Dwarf heroes are unlikely to develop much enthusiasm for either candidate. All players must first and foremost be satisfied that both will send the troops you need they will , and then balance up the pro's and con's of two imperfect choices. In terms of end results, let me just add that I am a little surprised by the number of people who feel comfortable with trading a modest social liberalisation for the imposition of absolute political tyranny.
The virtues of either outcome seem to me as muddy as the virtues of the ingame choices that generate them. Gaxkang talk , September 20, UTC. Bhelen was dead the moment he tried to manipulate me with fake documents. Danthehumanmage talk , July 20, UTC. I think there's a huge difference between a good person and a good ruler. These things don't necessary go hand in hand. So, while Bhelen is obviously much more ruthless and less likeable and honest than Harrowmont, he's the better ruler because his rule brings necessary changes and allows Orzammar to progress.
Harrowmont is certainly the more likeable, but he's a tradionalisit and therefore a bad ruler, because change and advance is that Orzammar so badly needs.
Stagnation means death sooner or later. Whatever Bhelens intentions are is irrelevant if it brings the dwarven society forwards, not backwards. So yes, Bhelen is more "evil" than Harrowmont, but he's also more capable and more willing to change things in order to make sure his people will survive. Well, it depends what you mean by "good" as it's very subjective. Harrowmont could be considered "good" because he's a kind and wise man.
He didn't get to this position by killing relatives like Bhelen. He also sticks by the exile noble dwarf warden. However, Bhelen could be considered "good" because he's the best choice for the future of Orzammar. Harrowmont is a traditionalist, not a good choice to get the kingdom moving forward. There is no good and evil here, only politics. In the end, both are wrong, and both are bad for different reasons. At the same time both are right, and both are good for different reasons.
Pick whichever you like more and get used to the gritty taste of realism and uncertainty because in DAI you aren't going to be able to go 2 feet without making a decision like this. Welcome to power. I actually hope we won't face a lot of these sort of unwinnable choices in the future. Why didn't the developers think of making a compromise between those jokers? Bhelen is more ruthless than Harrowmont as he is willing to do anything it takes to accomplish his goals.
Harrowmont is more close minded than Bhelen who sticks to the old ways, so in my mind, no potential king of the dwarves is good or bad. Harrowmont is the "nice" choice, not necessarily the good one. Wataru14 talk , July 21, UTC. Dragon Age Wiki Explore. Dragon Age Series. Explore Wikis Community Central.
Register Don't have an account? Forum:Is Bhelen or Harrowmont considered the "good" choice? Edit source. History Talk 0. Don't have an account? Sign up for free! What do you need help on? Cancel X. Topic Archived Page 1 of 2 Last. Sign Up for free or Log In if you already have an account to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
User Info: mjhundem. No difference outside of epilogue stuff That's Tengen Toppa. That's Gurren Lagann. My drill is the drill that creates the heavens! User Info: darthmalak No advantages or disadvantages in game its self. If you like the story, and want a "happy" ending go with Waring contains spoilers for the paragon of her kind quest. Siding with Bhelen and destroying the Anvil will cause Orzammar to come into a new age of prosperity at the expense of a dictatorship.
Bhelen strengthens Orzammar's ties with the surface world. He also grants casteless greater rights and privileges in exchange for fighting the darkspawn. This policy allows Orzammar to reclaim lost territory, but it upsets the noble and warrior castes.
After several failed assassination attempts, he dissolves the Assembly and rules alone. Compare this to the harrowmont epilogue If Harrowmont becomes king, he further isolates Orzammar from the surface world. Harrowmont will eventually die - suggested he could not handle dwarven political infighting anymore, or he was poisoned "A gay Duncan is still far and away more awesome than most characters"-MetalMikemon Dourtweg is the greatest person on the mass effect 2 boards.
Harrowmont - Nice guy, trusted advisor, isolationist, weak support in the assembly Bhelen - royal jackass, killed a brother and framed the other brother, seeks better connections with surface, strong assembly support, seeks to do away with the caste system equal rights for all essentially In the end, even for a "good" character, it is technically better to side with Bhelen as in the epilogue it shows that he is better for Orzammar.
But truthfully it is up to you and your preference.
0コメント