This question all depends on the decision to put Harrowmont on the throne. My question is if you think Orzammar can survive on its own or do they need the surface's help? --68.160.0.225 (talk) 01:25, October 3, 2011 (UTC)Bepease22
I think that when it comes to trading for their goods and supplies, they need the surfaces help. Now if they figured out a way to get all these goods on their own, Orzammar would definitely do just fine on their own. Besides the trading factor they have so far, even with all their connecting Dwarven cities failing, they've still remained the last ones to stand. Other than trading, the only other thing that they MIGHT need help on would be dealing with the Deep Roads since they main entrance is in their city. They only times they dont have to worry about this is when the country is facing the Blight. But overall, yes, I think they would. AFreeMarcher (talk) 07:00, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
Trading is not important as military reforms which Orzammar direly needs. Harrowmont is known for being a staunch supporter of the traditionalists so he won't most likely change a thing; meaning only warrior caste and noble cast can fight darkspawn, that is stupid since they have lot of casteless who could be soldiers and it is hinted by Shaperate that Bhelen has been reading a lot about one ancient dwarf king that became a dictator in order to be an effective ruler and put on reforms, especially in the military. Bhelen is a reformer, willing to try new things, plus he is a ruthless stateman who Orzammar really needs in my opinion. Desperate times needs desperate measures.
My point is after hundred of years the dwarf kings still cling to their old stubborn ways, which haven't changed anything. Bhelen is their best bet to change the society or face extinction from the darkspawn. Surface's help would be useful of course, but for how long? I doubt the surface will help the dwarves with their problems forever. --NobleHumanRocks (talk) 07:31, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
Although Orzammar's military and trade doctrine is very flawed, it isn't likely to get them killed. It has stayed alive for 1300 years since the first blight and the destruction of the Dwarven empire, through 5 blights and continuous Darkspawn attack. Being a traditionalist, Harrowmont is going to continue the same methods (It doesn't say anywhere that he cuts off trade with the surface, merely continuing old restrictions). From Orzammar's point of view, the situation remains the same until Awakening - this isn't very well remembered, but Kal'Hirol is reclaimed by House Helmi (incidentally, if not tricked in A Princes Favour, pro-Harrowmont) - first reclamation of a Thaig since the First blight, as far as we know. (One would think this would actually get more recognition) This happens regardless of the outcome of A Paragon of Her Kind - and if this is possible, this means that the deep roads situation is improving. So Orzammars sudden destruction for want of cut-throat modernisation seems unlikely. Also looking at Bhelens personality and policies (Ruthless `Drag them kicking and screaming into year X` Modernizer, very power-hungry (subverting what democracy there is, killing both his brothers, not to mention the entire house of his rival for the throne),ends-justify-the-means populist), the real world rulers he seems to fit with best are men such as Cromwell, Napoleon, Robespierre, Franco and Mussolini, while Harrowmont (weak traditionalist-moralist, not totally unwilling to change things (remember Helmi, who is the most libertarian dwarf in the assembly, supports Harrowmont - `Harrowmont seems more... forgiving`)) is similar to men such as Alexander Kerensky (leader of the russian provincial government that immediately proceeded Lenin) and the presidents of the Weimar Republic. The philosophy that Bhelen followed has done much damage to the cause of individual liberty in our world. Looking at the histories of, say, Britain, ones similar to Harrowmon'ts have done more in the long run than any other to promote it. TheTeaMustFlow (talk) 17:21 Oct 3 2011 (GMT)
I don't understand your reasoning above: Harrowmont will follow the old code, which is to deny dwarves who are born casteless of any rights. While Bhelen has looked up for ways to change the rights of the casteless which will give them more rights, which of course would boost his own power, so both benefits. I say Bhelen is the one who will give more individual liberty and rights to the common man than Harrowmont will ever do. I know who I would vote for if I were a casteless dwarf, and it would certainly not be Harrowmont. --NobleHumanRocks (talk) 22:13, October 3, 2011 (UTC)
They do need the trade from the surface to survive, food imports, exportation of lyrium, weapons, and probably more stuff. Althought Harrowmont's policy won't killed Orzammar right away, give time to time.
- Also from the mentioned pararels between Harrowmont and Bhelen to real world rulers, I think the one that best fits is: Harrowmont is Pompey (A noble supported by the Senate, more conservative and weaker than his rival.) and Bhelen is Julius Caesar (Also noble, more loved by the plebeians, populist, centralizer, monarchist, more liberal related to old policies, and an enemy of the Senate).
Mandalore 01:50, October 4, 2011 (UTC)
- The rights of the casteless are not particularly significant to Orzammar's defence. The casteless seem to make up a comparatively small portion of the population of Orzammar, so they wouldn't make much of a difference here or there, especially lacking in military training or equipment (there is a great difference between thugs and soldiers). The only castes that are at all important to it's defence are the Nobles (leadership), Warriors (obviously), Smiths, Merchants and Miners (Supply etc.).
- If Bhelen supports casteless rights and closer trade with the surface, it is only because he thinks it is the best way for him to gain power. All he seems to care about is his own strength - not casteless, not Orzammar, definitely not his friends and family. He would turn his back on his supporters and allies at the drop of a hat if he thought it would help him increase his power. He is also completely lacking in morality - if he is made king, by DAII we know he has killed both his brothers (and indirectly his father), forced a miscarriage of justice, tricked Helmi and Dace into giving him their support, suspended what little democracy there was and murdered Harrowmont and his ENTIRE HOUSE. Doubtless after DAO he killed far more. Making every noble house (and the warrior houses that serve them - ie. Orzammar's entire military) watch their backs even more in case their king is going to kill them seems like poor military doctrine. The most important question to ask regarding any government is `Who guards the guards themselves` - In this case, no one, and the guard is a murderous, lying tyrant. Not the best situation.
TheTeaMustFlow (talk) 19:29 Oct 4 2011 (GMT)
I hated making the choise of the king of Orzammar (I was playing a dwarf noble) Bhelen is a traitouros asshole who killed my brother and had me exiled and Harrowmont, even though he is somewhat of a gentle and just man still has a lot of terrible ideas and would it not be for personal matters I would never chose to side with him. Even though Harrowmonts way is flawed it isnt all wrong, the dwarves have survived so far just fine with the old ways. In the end I sided with Harrowmont because I simply dont trust Bhelen, he seems to be the kind of guy that would sacrifice hundreds of soldiers if it gained him more power (His "the ends justify the means" atitude makes me think he would be more of a tyrant than Harrowmont would be)
My one real beef with Origins is that you aren't given enough info in game to make an informed choice - but from what I read I put Bhelen in the throne because the 'caste' system in Orzamar badly needs changing and the role that surfaces plays needs acknowledging - I hated the fact that Harrowmont had to die but then Julius Caesar (whom Bhelen is a more ruthless verson of) forgave his political enemies and they stabbed him in the back and sometimes doing the right thing is a grey area. Orzamar probably could survive as is with Harrowmont on the throne but it's not the best thing for the majority of it's people.
Ser Pedantic
You guys are wrong. What Orzammar has is not democracy. Not anything that even looks like democracy. They have an aristocratic oligarchy, and that is close to the worst kind of government you could ever imagine. Bhalen wants to form an absolute hereditary monarchy. That means the king is supreme and everyone is equal under the king. My country underwent a stage of absolute monarchy before we got democracy and these centuries of absolutism was a golden age, as it meant that the king could favour the best, completely free of the demands of the old aristocracy and the church.
And to Orzammar’s survival. For a society to survive and thrive they needs lots of things. Amoung the many things are a strong military, a strong economy, and a strong government three particularly important factors. The casteless are a wasted resource, they force them to become criminals, where they may otherwise has excelled in many other more constrictive thing.
Democracy is not important, you must understand that it is no virtue in and off itself. Social elasticity is, the theoretical possibility of even a popper to rise to the rank of a chancellor or a general is imperative.
Harrowmount is the worst thing that can ever happen to Orzemmar. While it is true that they have survived since the first blight, they have also been in a constant and steady decline. It is only a matter of time before they will be destroyed unless they start making the much needed reforms. The descruction of Orzemmar would not mean the end of the dwarven race, for many would no doubt be able to escape to the surface, if it will even be the darkspawn that will get them. For if they continue to antagonize the human kingdoms as Harrowmount would do with is isolationist policies, then they will face the same faith as the Dales.
Trade binds people together; it would be absurd to go to war with one of your country’s closest trading partner, quite another with a country that offers you nothing, but holds promise of lots of spoil in a war.
If you want democracy in Orzemmar, then the first thing you need is to abolish the caste system, then and only then will a general representation built on the collective good of the people be possible.
For me there are no doubt, choose Harrowmount, and you will doom Orzemmar. Perhaps the dwarfs of Kall’Sharok will do things better, and manage to turn things around, perhaps the surviving dwarfs on the surface will manage to form a new society that will in time be able to retake their former halls, but Orzemmar as a society will not be able to survive.
We have seen it throughout the ages, great societies crumble due to internal strife and insufficient government. Democracy is best in times of peace, and to keep the status que, but when great crisis immerge, when radical reforms become the only way forward, only a dictator can lead the society through the storm. Read “The Prince”-rphb- (talk) 10:43, October 4, 2011 (UTC)
- You're actually defending everything Machiavelli stands for, that is any means for an end, it can be the slaughtering of innocents or the populace being tortured, but it's fine if will guarantee political stability right? No. "A dictador that leads the society through the storm" draws an imesurable pararel with Hitler, that led Germany from a broken country to the most powerful nation in the world at the "simple" cost of millions of lives. I agree with you the caste system is riculous, their form of governing is flawed and Harrowmont will doom Orzammar but you can't say that an absolute monarchy will make things better, in fantasy stories there are great king like Aragorn or Arthur, but absolutism means that the king holds extreme power, with no one stopping him from abusing it. And certainly doesn't mean that everyone is equal under the king, there are, and always will have classes and there will be a class with way more privilages then the others.
Mandalore 17:54, October 4, 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Orzammar has no agriculture and it would seem like very little running water. That's one thing the surface has. --Slowrider7 (talk) 11:36, October 4, 2011 (UTC)
Orzammar has survived so far thanks to the people like the Legion of the Dead, and other nameless heroes that stopped threatening darkspawn invasions in their tracks, sacrificing themselves in the process, and not due to its caste system. Its position in regards to the surface helped quite a bit, since without trade, Orzammar would surely be worse off, and would likely have fallen by DA:O. Remember, the darkspawn were encroaching and advancing steadily - they took Bownammar not long after the start of the Dragon Age.
The dwarven society isn't designed to cope with the darkspawn threat. Their cherished traditions are more likely to run them (further) into the ground than to keep them strong. It is demonstated many times over that many castless dwarves are at least equal to warrior caste ones in terms of combat, and that it is often through the works of exiled or otherwise outcast dwarves that Orzammar is still standing. Additionally, the system is circumvented in about every way imaginable, because it just isn't designed for the world they live in now; the world has changed since the times of the dwarven empire, while the system has not.
In this light, Harrowmont's strict adherence to traditions is more likely to weaken Orzammar than Bhelen's lust for power. Harrowmont would close Orzammar off and cut ties with the surface, and dispose of the casteless. He would keep the broken system, and pass away soon after being named king, returning Orzammar to the situation the Warden found it in.
Now, Bhelen, however big of a dick he is, has got a point. Letting the casteles take up arms against the darkspawn turns the tide of that endless war for the first time in centuries. Dissolving the Assembly, however 'undemocratic' it may seem, is also a sensible course of action in the situation Orzammar is in - its members would carry on attempting to assassinate Bhelen for stepping on their toes, and plunge the city back into throne squabbles. He's got a lust for power, but also what it takes to get Orzammar out of the pinch it is in.
Out of these two guys, I choose Bhelen. At least he can actually save Orzammar, though at a cost of sacrificing traditions; Harrowmont would rather save the traditions and sacrifice Orzammar.The Ranged Man (talk) 20:15, October 4, 2011 (UTC)
All they need are some Nugs and ale and Orzammar will be just fine. :) MarcoDelMarco (talk) 01:16, October 5, 2011 (UTC)
- @ Mandalore.
- The reason why I advocate absolute monarchy over noble oligarchy is simply because history showed it to be a superior and more equal a system. Moreover, if you look at the evolution of the nation in Europe you will see this general tendency.
- First, in the middle ages, we had a feudal oligarchy, somewhat like Orzemmar is, where the king is merely primus inter pares, the first among equels. Then, in the age of enlightenment, we see the rise of absolute monarchs, that dissolve the old feudal system to give room and privilege to the rising merchant class.
- Now this does not mean that the society is equal, but it does mean that it becomes plastic. As I tolled you, a pauper can become a chancellor or an admiral in a nation ruled by an absolute sovereign if he has the sufficient skills and enough will, but he will be doomed to remain a pauper under an oligarchy, simply because he will not be of blood.
- For these reason I strongly advocate the absolute monarchies over the old federal oligarchies. Yes, the absolute monarchies did fall, in the spring of nations in 1848 many old regimes gave weight for modern day democracies, but it was the enlightenment of these regimes that even made these revolutions possible.
- You can’t go directly from oligarchy to democracy, you need a transitional stage, and that stage is called absolute monarchy. The king needs to be empowered before he can give it up.-rphb- (talk) 13:27, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
I love the direction this debate has taken. Thanks especially to Mandalore and... um... -rphb-(?).
I find it rather silly to support Harrowmont on the grounds that Bhelen is anti-democratic. As in most Fantasy-settings, Thedas consists of feudal societies, with only slight variations on how much power is bestowed upon any given king/emperor/leader, and as far as I understand, none of this would be considered enlightened by our world's standards. And as recent "experiments" in the Middle-East has shown, societies which have no history, no experience with democracy tend to be rather... chaotic... when plunged unwillingly and unprepared into it. To move away from Machiavelli, Aristotle had some thoughts on the composition of government, and to (very) briefly and incompletely summarise it, he concluded that the lower and higher classes simply could not lead, as the former simply had no experience of or knowledge necessary for leadership, and as the latter tend to be to greedy, powerhungry and ignorant or oblivious to the needs of the lower classes.
I agree with -rphb- when (s)he concludes that Orzammar simply is not ready for democracy, and if that is what we ultimately want, we would have to abolish the aristocracy. The choice would thus have to be Bhelen.
But again, I find it silly to discuss democracy in this setting. What was important to me when I played (OK, make that 'play' as I never seem to tire of this game) DA:O was that which would have benevolant consequences on the societies as a whole - at least in the long run. In Orzammar's case, that would mean getting rid of the cast-system, as it seems to be the thing that has kept the dwarven situation from changing for the better. The status quo of the Dwarven empire, which Harrowmont seem to incarnate, has been a slow but steady decline. Kal'Hirol might have been reclaimed, but was so at a great cost of lives, and without golems or reforms (the castless are a wasted resource), I hardly think them capable of holding it for long. Bhelen is ruthless, but for a system that has been mired in tradition since the founding of the first (recorded) Thaig, going back hundreds, probably thousands of years, the only way for it to change is to tear it up by its roots. Of course, this might lead to instability, but Bhelen seems to be sufficiently popular amongst the lower casts, not to mention successful in his goals, to make his reforms last. Emil Olai (talk) 22:51, October 6, 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Emil, well said. But I want to point out, that you, just like so many others, confuse what Orzammar has with democracy. Representation is not equal democracy. Democracy is build on the ideal that all mean are generally equal, have equal rights, and an equal right to rule. Orzammars dashers are aristocratic in nature; they are not supposed to represent the masses, only the best and most noble.
- Orzammar’s government is an oligarchy, with the king serving as primus inter pares. I will like us all to agree on this fact first, because if we cannot agree upon what is, then we have no chance of agreeing upon what should be.-rphb- (talk) 08:04, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think isolationism is ever a good idea, and DAO tells us several times that the dwarven population is slowly but surely declining in the face of darkspawn presence inbetween Blights. Now, it's true that Orzammar has survived just fine thus far, but eventually, they're simply not going to have enough people without outside help: just because it's worked in the past doesn't mean it will keep on working. Especially if they keep their casteless out of the loop, thus reducing the numbers in their own army. Sure, some casteless end up in the Legion, but if the Legion doesn't coordinate its attacks with the regular army, well...On top of that, whatever casteless remain in Orzammar undermine it by crime. So there will come a point where the system will simply be unable to sustain itself. And while I do think that Bhelen is a huge a$$hole, even my Aeducan Warden ended up putting him on the throne (that did take some mental gymnastics to achieve, but still). If the dwarves want help--and eventually, there won't be a way around that, IMO--they're going to need more contacts with the surface, and more people to be aware of their problems. And internal reforms. Nilfalasiel (talk) 11:38, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just can't stop laughing every time someone says Orzammar has survived just fine on its own. Has no one in here read Stalata Negat? I mean, it's pretty clear in every bit of dwarven lore we read that the dwarves are NOT surviving just fine. Continuation of the status quo has seen a perpetual decrease of their underground borders, loss of countless thaigs to the darkspawn, exile of at lest 30% of their population for no good reason (castless and surfacers) a decrease in the number of available warriors (according to multiple sources, the Warrior Caste barely field enough warriors to protect the borders) and, let us not forget, institutionalized, sustained, and bitter political infighting. Let me ask you, which societies have similar traits? The failing Roman Empire, the Chinese Qing, Ming, Han, and Yuan Empires, and the Byzantines, to name a few (assuming you're all smart enough to switch out darkspawn for invading barbarians or Muslim Turks). My point is, Orzammar is not just fine, it is the very definition of a failing state. And if you continue the status quo with Harrowmont, you get the following: political infighting, decrease of lower-caste freedoms, and loss of trade with the surface (whoever said Harrowmont didn't decrease surface trade is wrong, he basically isolates Orzammar) OR A war between the dwarves and Ferelden, the destruction of Dust Town and a slaughtering of the castless, isolation of Orzammar (again, happens either way) and a continuation of traditional dwarven values. Now, add the decreased trade, angry/killed populace, and hostile neighbors to the problems I already mentioned. How successful do you think Harrowmont will be against the darkspawn?
Or, we have Bhelen! Who frees the castless (whoever said the castless weren't important is an idiot, because the ending slide basically says the darkspawn are pushed back because of the castless), loosens caste restriction allowing more people to fight the darkspawn, dissolves the Assembly (thus ending the institutionalization of political infighting), pushes the darkspawn back and retakes thaigs, and let us not forget, WELCOMES OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE WITH OPEN ARMS! Does Harrowmont do that? No, he makes them stay outside Orzammar. What does Bhelen do? He sends the Fereldans INTO THE DEEP ROADS and almost retakes Bownammar. I think, based on what is good for Orzammar, Harrowmont would not be just fine, just as every leader before him wasn't. Rathian Warrior (talk)
The point in "survived just fine" is the word "survived". You can't really deny that they've survived, because well, there's a substantial amount of dwarves who ARE still alive and have at least a semblance of an ordered society going on (before Endrin dies and the strife over succession breaks out, at least). Beyond that, however, I completely agree that they won't survive for very much longer if they change nothing and keep isolating themselves. And I do agree that the "just fine" part is debatable. Nilfalasiel (talk) 14:14, October 7, 2011 (UTC)
I never disagreed that the dwarves are surviving.Rathian Warrior (talk)
It just occured to me that we have moved a bit away from the original question. It seems as if there is at least a partial agreement that Bhelen would provide a ruthless but needed wave of reforms to Orzammar, while Harrowmont, though a bit more "forgiving", would be incapable and/or unwilling to do anything else than to maintain the traditions and political climate that will doom it in the long run.
The original question was whether or not Orzammar could survive without Surface help, and I think there should be little doubt that they could. With the necessary reforms that aimed at using all of Orzammar's resources (i.e. the Castless, taking soldiers from every cast, renewing relationship with Kal-Sharok etc.), Bhelen were able to push back the Darkspawn and retake several Thaigs, even without the Golems and Ferelden armies.
But than again, the more, the merrier, and Bhelen certainly seems to profit from surface help and trade. In conclusion, I think that question in itself irrelevant. The question that would be more pertinent is the one we have already discussed at great lengths, and that is what would be necessary for Orzammar (i.e. the Dwarves) to regain their empire and glory. I think we have found the answer to that: Bhelen. Emil Olai (talk) 02:04, October 8, 2011 (UTC)
- In the end, Orzammar will fall to the Darkspawn unless drastic measures are taken. The great underground empire has been reduced to two strongholds, and both are islands in a sea of Taint. It is something of a dilemma. Aeducan almost certainly was the one behind the death of his brother, and possibly his father, but the more progressive choice, while Harrowmont is the better man, but may ultimately doom Orzammar without the willingness to change the old ways that are slowly killing them. There is no way for them to regain their former glory without outside help. They not only need to beat back the darkspawn, but provide resources, skill and forces to hold them back while repairing the Deep Roads, the locks and the thaigs. Stronger than they were before, clearly. +|| Legionnaire Scout -- talk ||+ 12:47, October 8, 2011 (UTC)