FANDOM


This Forum has been archived

Visit Discussions
Forums: Index > Lore Discussion > Save the Queen: a trap?
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3327 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

Is it just me being paranoid, or is this really a trap? Not that I have any illusions about Loghain but killing his own daughter seems way too much far-fetched for my liking; yet it's still the most believable part. Alright, Anora's to be killed and is locked up - and her maid is left to roam free? An Elf whose life is not worth a single copper for most people? And is pretty familiar with the whereabouts of the estates, enough to steal uniforms? Wow, Howe must have gone soft or something, last time he was up for a murder, he was more careful about witnesses (OK, almost), or be totally out of his wits not to have her at least locked up with Anora.

I haven't played that part on my own yet but am I getting it right that after I access the dungeon, I kill Howe and all his guards? How come then that Cauthrien knows that I am there and that I killed him? I can think of only two people who are aware of my presence at the estates and that I was after Howe - Anora and Erlinna, am I wrong? And, if it's a trap - who set it? I can think of only one person who would benefit from Howe dead and my Warden caught - Loghain. Howe's getting widely unpopular, which undermines Loghain's own position, and power-hungry, accumulating lands and titles; his faults are slowly overweighing his usefulness. Once he is dead, Loghain can dump all the blame on him (he actually does at the Landsmeet, from what I have seen). As for the Warden - not just that he loses credit as a murderer but also may be "persuaded" to confess at the Landsmeet that the Wardens did betray Cailan, among other things, and discredit Eamon and Alistair.

If there are flaws in my logic, please point them out. Ygrain (talk) 16:41, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

I believe Anora had said she went alone to talk to Arl Howe and she was then "caged" in that room. Erlina may have went to Arl Howes later to see why the Queen hadn't returned and as she is an elf servant the guards most likley ignored her. I dont believe it was a trap I think once you start fighting in the dungeons some of the guards up stairs may have sent word to Ser Cauthrien as they may have been told by Loghain that he wanted the warden alive (pehaps so he can kill you himself I dont know).--Gdubs (talk) 18:11, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Loghain never denounced or blamed Howe that I can recall, he just tries to justify his actions in the landsmeet and I don't think Howes name even comes up.

There is some evidence supporting such a theory but if it were all planned out then it would solely be Loghains doing. Anora is far to careful to ever let herself be put in situation where her only hope of survival would be IF the wardens decided to help her, she would of had to have been actually captured like she said. Her servant wouldn't be working with Loghain against the queen and even if she was then it wouldn't help her get out of the estate or back in when it's Howes men not Loghains there. Gdubs explanation of her just being another elf in the estate would be the only plausible one. Anora would of told her servant to go to Eamon for help once she realized her father betrayed her, otherwise she would of just gone back to the palace instead of Eamons estate. If Loghain had planned this then he surely would of had spies and known when the wardens arrived Erlina would not have to alert Cautherian.

It's a thought that I've had before and it is plausible considering that Anora was starting to criticize her fathers factions more as we can see in the cutscenes, but there's no concrete evidence that Howe did not just act on his own or that is was Loghains plan. --Flurried (talk) 18:37, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Gdubs, from the way Erlinna describes what Howe told Anora, I got the impression that she was present to the conversation but I may be wrong. As for the guards alerting Cauthrien - possible only if they are able to recognize the Warden. As for getting the Warden alive - you capture and torture people for two main reasons: information and/or confession. I bet on the latter.

Flurried, in the version of the Landsmeet I watched on the youtube the Warden accuses Loghain that he ordered Howe to torture nobles and he retorts that Howe was responsible for himself. You have a good point that if it was all Loghain's plan, he would rely on his own people and not Erlinna. Ygrain (talk) 19:53, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Loghain also blames Howe if you tell on the Landsmeet that he was selling elves as slaves to the Tevinter mages. As for the topic itself... Well, it does seem kinda like a trap, but for what purpose? Put Anora on the throne? What about Loghain? Anora betrays Loghain if you choose to side with her... Maybe because he wasn't seeing that one coming and Anora may have changed the plan? Hmm... Curious. -- Rocketai (talk · contr) 20:22, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
I cannot decide if Anora was or was not actively participating in he plan or if Loghain just took advantage of the situation. I'm planning to betray Anora at the Landsmeet but have to have some good reason for the sake of role-playing. Ygrain (talk) 20:36, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, there's plenty of good reasons to betray her. If your Alistair is hardened, right there you've got the fact that he doesn't trust her and thinks that she's just as deceitful and power-hungry as Loghain. What I've generally done for that scene is have my Warden realize the necessity of having Anora's support against Loghain but also not trusting her, and believing that, issues of trust aside, she is not the best option for the throne. Easy enough if you roleplay a Warden who is prepared to tell Anora whatever you think she wants to hear in order to support you, and if you also believe that Anora would double-cross you in an instant. Depends I suppose on the personality of your Warden. Remember, for the Landsmeet, we're talking political maneuverings to decide what is in the best interest of Ferelden, both immediately and in future. Your Warden is primarily interested in ending the Blight, and both The Warden and Alistair understand that a united Ferelden is critical for that. This falls under the "whatever is necessary" option as discussed in the Duncan=murderer topic, so hey, betraying Anora's an easy choice. ^_^

Betray her just for the fact that she can be a b*tch. Seriously, if you choose certain dialogue options she can be one. I wouldn't want her to be my queen, that's for sure. But that's probably not the answer you were looking for. :] DalishAssassin (talk) 01:33, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the odd thing about Anora is she can seem like a power hungry traitor or a somewhat gentle queen based on the descisions you make.--Gdubs (talk) 01:56, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

My Warden tries to abide by his honour as much as he can; on the other hand, he does have an inclination to vengeance (such a little streak of darkness on his shiny armour). He believes that Loghain was the mastermind behind the Cousland massacre and therefore will strip Loghain of everything he ever achieved: his power, his reputation, his daughter, and only last of all his very life. The part with Anora is the hardest: he would never kill her just for being her father's daughter but he will not hesitate to play her against Loghain. The only question is if he's going to have qualms about it or not; the more bitchy she seems, the better. And if he thinks that the nice little time in the torture chamber was partly her doing, even more so. - I need a lot of detail for his exact mindset because I'm possibly going to write it down; the Muse has been buzzing round my ears for some time now. Ygrain (talk) 05:54, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I understand that if you tell Anora you want to kill her father, she will betray you at the Landsmeet. Would that piss off your Warden enough to double-cross her right back, honor be damned?
Oh, it's going to be somewhat more complex. The Wardens needs Anora on his side because his main aim is to hurt Loghain as much as possible by turning his only daughter against him. To make sure this happens, he will promise her his support and mercy for her father and make a bid as her royal consort to make his stand more convincing. One as power-hungry as Anora will easily believe that he cannot betray her if he can gain so much by keeping his word, which of course, is a wrong assumption. - The Warden knows from the very beginning that he is going to compromise his honour to achieve his vengeance, the question only remains how much sleep he is going to lose over it. Ygrain (talk) 19:56, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
I think it was a trap, but I’m also sure that Anora was not in on it. For Loghain Anora was just his little girl with pigtails, not truly fit to rule. He wouldn’t do anything to bring her in danger, but he would also like to get her away from Denerim, away from the palace and the seat of power.
I don’t think he planned it all out, but I’m sure he knew. Loghain and Howe was in a power struggle. Their alliance had crumbled at that point and both sought a way to end the other. When Howe captured Anora, Loghain did the best thing he could, feign ignorance and let the warden do his dirty work. Afterwards Ser Cautrian would arrest the warden and force a damaging confession out of him/her that would surely win him the landsmeet.
After that Eamon could be arrested for treason and none would challenge his authority again. The only flaw in the plan was that he underestimated the competence of the warden, or overestimated the incompetence of his guards. Seriously who would believe that a dwarf and a Qunari were circus clowns?-rphb- (talk) 09:02, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this seems like the most plausible course of action. What doesn't fit is Erlinna, for the reasons that I stated above. As I think of it, she cannot feign "just another servant in the house" convincingly because of her heavy accent, the moment she opens her mouth she becomes highly suspicious. - BTW, why does Anora have an Orlesian maid?
I'd very much like my rescue team to be Alistair and Morrigan just for the fun of seeing those two forced to cooperate but this would be a total nonsense - I already left Alistair at home so that we don't get captured both if it's a trap, so I can't have him stroll right in the middle of Fort Drakon, though I do not doubt that he'll be mightily *** off, being made to sit on his ass safely at Eamon's estates :D It will have to be Morrigan and Wynne, I don't think the Warden would be able to walk away on his own without a healer. Ygrain (talk) 09:53, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
You could still do that. Morrigan has the motivation of needing the Warden alive for the Dark Ritual. And Alistair, well, you said it yourself, he could just be pissed at being left behind. Then there's the fact that he doesn't trust Morrigan, so he could absolutely refuse to NOT go with her to rescue you. There's a few different ways to play that so that it's not nonsensical at all, using his distrust of Morrigan, his distrust of Anora, and also his general fear of losing the only other Grey Warden in all Ferelden, which could all be written as plenty for him to disregard the foolishness of waltzing into Fort Drakon.
Never mind that, I already have a plausible scenario here. Ygrain (talk) 19:56, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
@Ygrain. Erlinna fits perfectly. Howe had no reason to hold her. By letting her go she would run either home to Loghain or to the warden and from Howe's perspective both would be a win. Perhaps he had actually maneged to buy her, perhaps Loghain did, or perhaps she just played by his hand. When you have a hostage you need someone to bring the word to your enemies, preferable someone expendable, someone not an ally to you.
Think about it, it would be the perfect plan. Lure the warden into the midst of The Arl of Denerims manor, past all of his guards so there will be no escape and then just let it all colaps upon them. Howe was confident enough that he was able to defeat the warden, and the rescue attempt could easily have gone really bad. Think about it. Was Howe really surprised when we came busting through his door? And why was he surrounded by two high-level rogue wizards down at the most secluded part of his dungeon, far from ideal to hold a meeting, but perfect for setting up a trap.
No matter how that confrontation would have ended up Loghain would have won as Ser Cautrian would have made sure whoever was left standing was taken out.-rphb- (talk) 14:11, October 5, 2010 (UTC)


@-rphb- I believe you may be mixing up the "Saving the Queen" quest and the "Prison break" quests,as Howe is already dead by the time you are in prison. Also they didn't believe a dwarf and qunari are circus performers (or at least they didn't want them) because from what I've seen no matter what you say you can't get into the fort without kiling the captain if you bring Sten and Oghren.

@Ygrain Perhaps Anora has Erlina around for more than makeup, her husband did seem to be away from home for lengths of time.--Gdubs (talk) 16:47, October 5, 2010 (UTC)


Erlina is her chambermaid, thats normal for royalty our Queen have 4. But Erlina is defidently more then she seems. We know that she is an elf from Orlais. It's a safe bet that she is also a bard like Leliana. Futhermore we know that bards like the antivan assassins needs to be bisexuals, it helps them tremendously at least, and as anything else, bisexuality is something that can be learned. Anyway. The real question of course is whether she is more then just Anora's chambermaid and personal bard, and I think that is affirmative. You cannot be as much of a bitch as Anora if you are at all attracted to men. Only a true lesbian can be so scornful and unpleasant. Any women that are still attracted to men needs to make herself vulnerable sometimes. That's why I belive that Anora is a hardcore lesbian, why she and Cailan never had a child, and why Cailan had started to entertain what some assume to be a more intimate alliance with the new young empress of Orlais.-rphb- (talk) 17:54, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
 ??? ok, I already know your a bigot, just about everything you write in these forums contains some blatantly racist or sexist remark, but that's just...special.

Am I the only one who found what @rphb said offensive? Gruedragon (talk) 18:23, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not. But he writes offensive things like that all the time. Has anyone ever bothered to call his ass out on it?

I do not believe Bisexuality is a choice I believe you can care little what the sex of a person is and be attracted to them if that is how you think, now peope who are bisexual can choose to be hetero/homsexual if they wish. I dont think someones sexual preferance determines there personalities and that a heterosexual woman can be very unpleasant just as commonly as a homosexual woman can be a joy to be around. About a womans vulnerability I would be lying if I said the idea of "saving" a woman from danger isnt appealing but I also like women who can handle themselves and aren't damsels in distress but women warriors (of course they could be both in certain situations). @last contributer yes I believe some people have .--Gdubs (talk) 18:35, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Nobody choose what their orientation is, period. Homosexuals can and do have sex with opposite-gendered people. Doing so does NOT make them heterosexuals, just as the reverse is true. The act of sex does not make you gay or straight or bi, your PREFERENCE for a particular gender does. But why are we talking about that anyway? It doesn't effing matter whether it's a choice or an inborn trait or not.


Of course that Erlina must be a bard! How could I be so dumb not to realize that! That's how she knows her way around the estate and snatches the uniforms! - And that's why she is Orlesian :-) However, it still doesn't resolve Anora's part in the plot - I guess I will have to replay the initial dialogue and pick different options not to miss any hints.

As to Anora's sexuality: rather than lesbian, I think she is simply uninterested in sex because the only thing she finds hot is power. Besides, she seems like the kind of person who tries to be in control of everyone and everything, and during the sexual intercourse she might lose that control, or even be controlled herself. I really do not blame Cailan for being infidel, bedding Anora must have been far from enjoyable.

Lastly, there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behaviour. The former is inborn, the latter can be learned. Either case does not justify making far-fetched generalizations - am I crystal clear, -rphb-? And this is the last time I want to hear about sexuality and prejudice in this thread. Ygrain (talk) 19:56, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Can we still contemplate that Anora and Erlina are possible lovers?--Gdubs (talk) 21:10, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

@Gdubs. No that's sexist, Ygrain forbids it :p
I agree that it is off topic so I will drop it. I do not however believe that I was wrong and I do have more founding for my words. I just want you to know that saying that I am prejudice is itself a prejudice judgement, saying that I have no founding for my words or dislike.
We should not be personal and this discussion have already become so. I sometimes forget how insulting a generalisation is, even a well founded one; but let me just say this:
All chickens are stupid and
Having a platypus for a pet is never a good idea.
-rphb- (talk) 21:17, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe my question was sexist (it was sexy), also a chicken can live with its head cut off men cant.--Gdubs (talk) 21:33, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

That brings a whole other question of what it means to be alive about. I just pointed out that generalisations are useful and necessary, and you shouldn't generalise by saying that generalisations are bad.-rphb- (talk) 21:39, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

A paradox

"All generalizations are bad."
"Is that not a generalization?"
"Yes well except for that one."
"But couldnt that mean some generalizations are true, such as all deserts are dry?"
"Yes but those are shown to be true through scientific analysis."
"So all generalizations are wrong unless proven or are able to be proven scientifically?"
"Yes."
"Isn't that a generalization?"
"I believe it is"
"Could that be proven scientifically?"
"Perhaps."--Gdubs (talk) 21:58, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
The problem of induction Gdubs, the problem of induction.
If you know that p1 entitles x and p2 entitles x and that pn entitles x, would you then know that p entitles x?
You would of course say: "That depends on n. If n is a million sure, if n is five not so much" But here lies the problem. In an infinitive, (or near infinitive) population a million is no greater part then five so the probability you are striving for cannot be used in absolute terms as a justification.
We do it anyway as you know, and usually we will start to generalise as soon as n>=3. You know what they say "2 is a coincidence, 3 forms a pattern".
Generalisations are fundamental for any kind of empirical learning. A generalisation can only be considered wrong if it is based on insufficient data or if certain kinds of data is purposefully overlooked.
A group of people can share a general characteristic that an outsider with reason can judge them by. Even though a single individual from the group may have behaviour that is deviant from the conmen norm (of the group), if you do not know anything more about the person but what is a general characteristic of his group, you can with right judge him by the general characteristic, even though it is for this particular individual, inaccurate.-rphb- (talk) 10:07, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
"if you do not know anything more about the person but what is a general characteristic of his group, you can with right judge him by the general characteristic, even though it is for this particular individual, inaccurate" Yes, -rphb-, perfectly right - that's what I call a sound base for prejudice and that's why this kind of thinking is so highly offensive. While generalisation in itself is a useful psychological tool of learning, in contact with other human beings we should be able to draw on experience that the usefulness of generalisations is limited. I take it you have never happened to be considered a part of a group with negative connotations or you'd be screaming like hell were you to be assessed just on the basis of your group allegiance. It seems to me that you dwell in the heights of philosophical concepts too much and do not realize what they may mean for other people. - Anyway, the discussion ends here or I will have your virtual balls for that. Continue on-topic, or refrain please. Ygrain (talk) 10:49, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
I have spoken solely theoretical Ygrain. Yes I know that that kind of generalisations, called statistic discrimination, is for many people something they can take offence to. Nevertheless it is a vital tool in the insurance world and it can also be of great worth in police work (in this regard it is called racial profiling).
Now people can call these sought of practices all sought of things, but they have one important characteristic that prevents them from ever being abolished, their pragmatism.
Now I am sure that I would be called all sorts of names if I went to America, (eurotrash comes to mind), and you as an American will be no less welcome here. Having a general dislike for people of other cultures may seem negative, but I consider it necessary as you cannot have love for your own nation and way of life, without feeling scorn for people not following your ideals.-rphb- (talk) 12:55, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

I take that as a compliment to my English but it seems that you have forgotten out little debate on royal dynasties. I'm in no way American, and I guess I would come under "a suspicious Eastblocker", which is an euphemism for "a second-class human being". Surprisingly, I manage to get by without feeling the need to scorn anyone unless they continue making fools out of themselves even after they have been warned. Ygrain (talk) 17:48, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


Back on topic: I killed Howe today in one-to-one duel - no, this is not an in-game option, it was just me screwing the fight magnificently but it felt so right, doing it without anyone's assistance - and he mentioned something like "I did not expect you to be such a fool as to go down here." Not sure if he was referring to the key I needed to obtain to free Anora, or simply to pursuing vendetta against him. Does this line differ for other origins? If the reaction is the same for all the origins, then Howe's definitely a part of the plan, though I doubt very much that he volunteered for a sword through the middle. On a second thought: if he was waiting for me in the dungeon, then someone must have alerted him, no? It could easily have been Erlinna, she was gone for quite some time when she was "distracting the guards" and we have no account what else she might have been doing at that time Ygrain (talk) 17:48, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

There was no doubt that he was waiting for you, the whole thing was set up to be a trap. Of course he didn't expect you to win, he was confident, perhaps overconfident, that he and his elite bodyguards could defeat you. But think about the difficulty of the fight. If you storm in there and don't try some underhand tactics like luring one away from the other and finishing them one at a time you have a very difficult battle ahead.
Howe was sure he could defeat him, Loghain who properly planned it all, was confident that you were able to kill Howe first and then to send Set Cautrian to finish you of while you were weak and vulnerable. It was a good plan and if we didn't have the power of infinite replay, and if the AI hadn't been so pathetic we would most likely have faced our doom in that dungeon.-rphb- (talk) 18:45, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
"If you storm in there and don't try some underhand tactics like luring one away from the other and finishing them one at a time you have a very difficult battle ahead." Er... that's what I did, and then there were still a mage, a guard (both about half-finished) and Howe (almost unscratched), and myself with a nasty sword a good supply of potions. But I must say that while Howe delivered a few hard blows, he went down quite quickly, compared with other red bosses which took ages.

'Finished the whole stuff. So... locked-up Anora has a uniform at hand? How very convenient! And the way she skipped Eamon's question how come that the Warden was captured - no-one's gonna convince me that Anora was not a part of the plan and then simply changed sides to play a little game of her own. Afterwards, Eamon himself says she's not to be trusted, and I completely agree on that. Ygrain (talk) 22:24, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


For all the Queen Anora haters here... *puts on armor to protect against rocks and tomatoes* I think you shouldn't let your feelings doom the country because Anora is a "bitch". Well, I agree, she is annoying and double-cross you two times (one when you're fleeing from Howe's state and Anora says to Cauthrien that the Warden is trying to kidnap her and the other where you don't support her), but if you side with her, she is a powerful and respected queen. For the past five years she was the one that really ruled, while Cailan did not. What I think is best is Alistair and Anora rulling together.

Anora's knowledge on the politics of the country and loved by the people and Alistair's royal blood and knowledge on armies since he fought against the Blight with The Warden. I always choose Alistair as king and my Warden as queen because I'm a selfish whore, but in reality, making Anora and Alistair rulers is the best option. The only problem I see here is the fact if both are able to make a child. Alistair is a Grey Warden but he can still have a child, even if the chances are slim. Fiona was a Grey Warden and she still gave birth to a child with Maric.

According to Eamon's letter to Cailan, Anora may not be able to bare a child because she is almost thirty. I find it stupid since my aunt bared a child with fourty years, but I guess Anora have a problem, since the past five years she never had a child with Cailan or they never ever touched each other. Well, that's my opnion at least... I know this has nothing to do with the main subject, but after reading how many Anora haters joined this forum's discussion, I thought it would be interesting to point out. DON'T HIT ME! -- Rocketai (talk · contr) 22:43, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Fiona is in no way a good example since there were several unusual factors that may have influenced her fertility: 1) quickening of the taint caused by Remille's amulet - should rather work as a contrary but we cannot know 2) the anti-taint stuff Maric was taking 3) the wash in that self-cleaning water basin she and Maric took when they, er, you know.
While I appreciate Anora's skills, I love Alistair too much (in this version it's just brotherly love) to do that to him when I have already convinced him to go for a crown he did not want. Crowning him and marrying him to a woman who despises him seems too cruel. Besides, how do I know that I'm not condemning Alistair to death by leaving Anora in a position of influence? A little coup or an assassination if she gets the feeling that she would do better without him? After all, she has an example to follow, and is ruthless enough to carry out whatever she thinks necessary; she even has the same airs of one's own infallibility. And, what about my own Warden? Can he feel safe if he executes her dear daddy personally? Won't she hold a grudge against him that might adversely affect her attitude to the Grey Wardens as such? I don't think that "in death, sacrifice" was meant for this purpose.
All in all - marrying Alistair to a barren and treacherous woman is not an option. While he may not be the best ruler Ferelden ever had, he will be no disaster, either, and I will introduce him to a lot of nice ladies to make sure the Theirin blood continues. A happy end, of sorts. Golden Age come another day. Ygrain (talk) 05:32, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why anyone was suggesting that Anora and Cailan weren't having sex because Anora despises sex, honestly. Whatever might have been the case after Cailan died, Anora's not stupid. She had to have been aware that even if she was the one doing the ruling, her status as queen was wholly reliant on being married to the ruling King, because she had no Theirin blood. She does say to the Warden that she and Cailan eventually grew to love each other, although yes, it's possible she might've been lying. But even so, Anora would know that she is obligated as the queen--remember, before Cailan dies, her claim to the throne relies ENTIRELY on him--to bear a Theirin heir. She would not have risked her status as the queen by refusing to have sex with the king. Also, while I admit the game is as guilty of this as readers here, it could as easily been Cailan who was infertile as her. Women typically get the blame for a couple's inability to have a child, but the fact is, men are just as likely to be the 'guilty' party in that arena as women. Also, to the person mentioning that some women give birth at 40: this is true, some women do, but it is still a biological fact that a woman's fertility declines as she gets older, and the decline after the age of 35 is significant. That many women do still get pregnant in their 40s doesn't change this fact. And women who do get pregnant later in life--well, they still were not as fertile as they were in their 20s and early 30s.


Not liking sex and not having sex are two different things, and ability to produce children yet another. Above I suggested that the reason why Cailan sought other women could be Anora's attitude to sex. Honestly, can you imagine Anora in a passionate moment? I can't, no matter how I try. If she considered sex a mere duty (possibly even an embarrassing one, and distracting her from reading another chapter of the Fereldan Macchiavelli equivalent), Cailan would hardly insist on fulfilling that duty very often and look elsewhere instead, to someone who would appreciate this part of life more. If Anora rules alone, she stubbornly remains unmarried; if she marries HN, in the Awakening there is a scene with Loghain who mentions that Anora gave him a horrified look when he asked if children are to be expected soon - these are clues that there might be something wrong with her attitude to sex. The inability to produce an heir would then go to the lack of trying, not infertility as such, but this simply cannot be determined. Marrying the only remaining Theirin heir to the woman who did not prove her fertility and is already past the ideal reproducing age is at least unwise in this respect. Ygrain (talk) 06:02, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

I dont believe Anora was in on a plan to kill or capture you the two times she turns on you is when you make it clear that you put her in a bad position (claim to be rescuing her, not supporting her as queen). I believe Arl Howe may have allowed information to leak (perhaps he was aware of Erlina and simply let her go to Eamon) that he had Anora prisoner and was planning on killing her and blaming it on Eamon, Perhaps he planned that Eamon would send the warden to rescue Anora.Gdubs (talk) 23:27, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Of course he had planned that, and while some of us may have been lucky, infinite replay makes us all but all-powerful.
To your Anora supporters. It is obvious you are Americans. Being from an monarchy I know that the actual competence of a ruler is insignificant compared to his actual bloodties. Of course tyrant are to be avoided, but except for them every prince is okay. Alastair have a very good quality for a king, one that Anora is lacking: He knows he doesn't know. He is not too proud to ask other wiser men for advise, and with this he can become an excellent king.
Anora is arrogant and snobby and wont listen to anyone but herself. She have every potential to be a tyrant, and furthermore she is an usurper. She is not of royal blood and have no claim for the throne. Maric and his mother died in their fight to restore the rightful line to the throne. All their sacrifices risk being lost by this greedy bitch.-rphb- (talk) 16:14, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
Dude. Hailing from a faux-monarchy country doesn't make you expert on fictional queens nor qualified to pull gross generalizations. It makes as much sense as yours truly from agricultural country giving very serious criticism on pumpkins in Howe's garden. Back to topic, I don't think it was a trap; to me it looks like Anora wanted to go into contact and possible alliance with the Warden in an unconspicuous way, but in case of shit happening to have a way out as well. Dorquemada (talk) 16:53, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
I don't support Anora, I actually hate her, but I was giving my opnion that she could be a good ruler since she was the one that ruled Ferelden in the past 5 years and I don't see Ferelden on flames (not the Blight). But since you guys showed good reasons that she is a tyrant double-cross bitch, I was wrong. And nope, I'm not american. -- Rocketai (talk · contr) 16:26, October 7, 2010 (UTC)


@-rphb- I usually marry hardened Alistair to Anora, so alstair doesnt allow Anora to push him around and he becomes more assertive about his position as king to be more than a figurehead. Also what is the relevance of someone being and american and liking anora?Gdubs (talk) 17:19, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I just don't think you would understand the importance of royal blood. You don't have any king and your country is build on immigration. How could blood and family even mean anything to a people with no shared heritage? USA are and will always be, your 2nd homeland.-rphb- (talk) 17:32, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
-rphb-, aren't you by any chance related to Alistair? You also have a tendency to put your foot in your mouth, though on different topics. - Must be something in the air in this thread. Once again, please refrain from making far-fetched generalisations concerning people and their characteristics, thankyouverymuch. Ygrain (talk) 18:02, October 7, 2010 (UTC),
How did you know I like to bite my toenails? Also what relevance does that have? Do you have anything particular against toenail bitters?-rphb- (talk) 18:07, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

As I have always believed in this situation of saving Anora (stupid skank), I dont think she was "captured". So in the immortal words of Admiral Ackbar from Return of the Jedi (nerd power to the tenth): "ITS A TRAP!" edit: forgotted to sign. LuciferiousCouslandIII (talk) 19:41, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that she was captured, I honestly believe it was a trap. I don't think she knew about Cailan's affair with Empress Celene and his plans to give her the boot but Loghain did know. She also didn't know of the coup, because even as big of a bitch that she is, she would never screw Ferelden like that during a blight. Loghain recruited Howe to betray the Couslands and Jowan to kill Arl Eamon, in order to make his ascension to the throne easier. After Anora found out about Loghain and Howes plan after Ostagar she joined as a way to survive. After they knew that the Warden (in my version Aedan Cousland) created an army and joined Arl Eamon and wanted revenge they created the trap. I Loghain and Anora called an audible to the trap and made sure Howe didnt know. I think that their trap served two purposes: 1. Get rid of Howe in order to consolidate power (they knew AC was out for his head) and 2. Capture and kill the Warden. After the trap was sprung when Ser Cauthrien got there only a few minutes after Howe was killed. But after the Warden fought out or escaped the trap, Anora saw a golden opportunity to have the thrown to herself again. But AC shot her down cause she only wanted to make me a prince (screw that, king or nothing), and then I killed her dad and Alistair through her in a tower and he became a puppet king and I the puppeteer. thearchknight

Good plan, I always go for that too. In this regard Loghain was right: He calls the Warden a purporter at the landsmeet. Personally I have always been soft for that kind of flattery.-rphb- (talk) 22:32, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, just when I this rphb fellow couldn't be any bigger of a bigot, and here he goes again. --Flurried (talk) 07:36, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


@-rphb- Second homeland? what would be my first then, I have been told I am mostley french on my fathers side with some mohawk indian and on my mothers German, English, Irish, polish and more american indian what would my first homeland be? The U.S. may be made up of immigrants and descendants of immigrants but you may be suprised of the amount of ignorance that is said by the "true americans" (aka white skinned fundamentalist christian hypocrites that descend from western europeans). How much blame is put on immigrants even though immigrants are part ofwhat make our economy thrive. On the subject of Royal blood I dont believe in such a thing ,I dont believe being the child of a leader makes you any more adept in the ability to lead. I would rather have someone who is the most capable of leading a nation then a man who is simply the child of the Emperor/King. If they happen to be one and the same then so be it .--Gdubs (talk) 07:53, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

"I don't believe being the child of a leader makes you any more adept in the ability to lead." Definitely not, there have been tons of examples throughout the history when children of great kings and leaders proved a total disappointment. However, the point is not what you and I know but what the general notion of a given period is - and there were times when blood relation was all that mattered. As for Ferelden - you can overhear one of the nobles talking that he would prefer skillful Anora over a bastard but it seems that for the majority, Calenhad's bloodline does matter. Ygrain (talk) 08:13, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
@Gdubs. Well that is easy. Being of mixed blood would make you a bastard. A thing I really don’t like about the way people speak about your president is that they call him “black”. What does that even mean? Using proper racial terms clarifies everything much more nicely. You see, Obama is not a negro, he is a bastard as he is of mixed blood. I hate the use of the word “black” in this sense and consider it dummening. (I hope it is the correct translation of the word “fordummende” which means, something that makes you dumber or more ignorant).
Anyway you shouldn’t judge people based on the colour of their skin, you should judge them based on what that colour truly represent. Racism has been ridiculed because it has been incorrectly represented. It’s a deeply philosophical, scientific and intellectual ideology.
@Ygrain and also ad Gdubs. “I mostly agree that Nordic Americans with a pure line of decadence from a western European country generally can be considered hypocrites when they claim to be more true Americans then anyone else. America is the “second homeland”, because it is the true homeland of none, (with the sole exceptions of certain Indians tribes that lost it because they were week). As such no one can claim to be true Americans. Claiming superiority of race is another matter entirely, one that can be discussed seriously. I see lots of both pros and cons for that ideology and will like to keep an open mind.
About the idea of Royal blood, then you did not, as I correctly assumed that you wouldn’t when I made the generalised judgement based on you being Americans.
Royalty have nothing to do with competence. A king is head of state for life, that does not make him head of government. I find it distasteful and primitive that you mix these to where different offices.
A king is a symbol, that is his primary function, that is the primary function of the head of state. There must be consensual or near consensual support for the head of state, speaking against them is treason.
A head of government on the other hand, can rule by a simple minority. He is often and with good reason the target of much criticism, in fact criticising him is fundamental for an open society.
You cannot chose to become a symbol, a symbol is something above the control of man, it is an “of course”. Of course Alastair should be king, he is of Royal blood, there is no other candidate there is no need for doubt.
You can limit the kings power, I understand that, if the king is incompetent it is important that he would not be able to do things that could ruin the kingdom, that is what government officials are for. They guide the king, steer him in the right direction, and if there is no other option: they assassinate him, so another more competent prince can take the throne.
The last option is strictly for dire emergencies of course, and if we truly makes the separation of head of state and head of government, it will become completely unnecessary.
You fail to understand the significance of the figurehead. It all becomes much more simple, when someone can rule whiteout taking that mantle upon themselves.-rphb- (talk) 20:30, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

@-rphb- A bastard? Both of my parents were married when I was conceived and born. I believe the term you are thinking of is "Mutt" I would be happy to call myself such, have you ever heard of hybrid vigor, not that I believe it applies to me as I believe race is either non existant in humans or so miniscule in its differences that it is irrelevant to a mans ability. No, I do not understand the importance of a figure head enlighten me.--Gdubs (talk) 21:12, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


@Gdubs (En bastard) “A bastard is in the dog world a dog born of parent from two different races. I assumed that the word meant the same in English as it is spelled the same, we just have an emphasis on the “st”.
The difference is vital, and much greater then the difference between a puddle and a bulldog. Culture is a keyword and I do not believe that it is possible to clearly distinguish culture from race.
As I have tolled you a figurehead is the official top leader of any organisation with a vertical structure. He can have reel power, or he can be mare symbolic. In either case he is the symbol of the organisation, not a symbol like a flag, but much more concretely, he is the wielder of the Sword.
A state needs a sword, and you cannot have a sword without a sword holder. You also need the Weight, the Pen and the Cross. These are the four sources of power. Power is critical. A pen with no sword breaks like glass, a sword with no pen strikes in blind, without the Weight, there can be no Justice, and without the Cross, there can be no purpose.
We all know that power corrupts, in every single case where all four sources of power have been joined in a single entity disaster have struck.
The Sword and the Pen have a strange relationship, they are interdependent in a way that is not the case for the Weight and the Cross. Always they try to dominate each other, but they also need each other, as if one were to disappear, the other would surely follow.

The figurehead is important as he or she is the one that holds the Sword, the head of government on the other hand, is the one that holds the Pen, or at the very least, has the tightest grip on it at the moment.

People care, of course people care, but while the Pen can be griped my many, the Sword needs always be held by one man (or women). If more then one man grips at the Sword, the organisation, the nation, becomes weak and unable to strike when it is most critical. In the final case, when all sides have been heard, one voice, the voice of the Sword wielder, must cut trough all, take responsibility of all on his shoulders, and with only his conscience and faith guide him makes the final undisputable and unappealabel decision.-rphb- (talk) 22:08, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well rphb in the english language bastard means a person born of unmarried parents. A person born of two people of different races would be a mutt. And racism is not an intellectual view, it's pure bigotry.TheMinority (talk) 22:30, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

"Culture is a keyword and I do not believe that it is possible to clearly distinguish culture from race." - That's a nonsense. Race is conditioned by genes, culture by the background in which you grow up. Take a person from where they were born, raise them, and they are a part of your own culture, not the one they were originally born to. 94.112.79.213 (talk) 23:04, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

-rphb-, I think you might want to consider another self-imposed hiatus. Posting stuff like this- "I mostly agree that Nordic Americans with a pure line of decadence from a western European country generally can be considered hypocrites when they claim to be more true Americans then anyone else. America is the “second homeland”, because it is the true homeland of none, (with the sole exceptions of certain Indians tribes that lost it because they were week)." is just wrong on so many levels. Your insensitivity toward others is maddening. Calling Native Americans weak? What next? Jews being corralled into camps, and being gassed by Nazis, were also weak? I'd ask what's wrong with you, but we've already been down that road. LVTDUDE (talk) 23:09, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

@-rphb-, you're treading on very thin ice here. Please keep your comments condusive to the discussion at hand. If you're unsure about whether or not to post it, I'd advise you not to do so. Plus, considering your recent posts, I'd also caution you to stay away from national or ethnic discussions. Cheers! -- tierrie talk contr 23:19, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


@-rphb- This was how I interpreted the word bastard " a child whose birth lacks legal legitimacy—that is, one born to a woman and a man who are not legally married to one another". American indians held of european immigrant rule for over 300 years and drove out the vikings that landed their before that, I would consider that considerable resistance seeing as how many of them in the west were nomads and werent united under a single banner,similar to the gauls , and how their were very few of them because of their original low numbers and introduction to foreign disease. I would not consider that weak.

tierrie talk contr He is simply expressing his beliefs, I would agree that this is probably not the best medium to exchange those beliefs for me or for rphb and that you are simply trying to maintain order and relevance in the forums as you see that some users are upset with rphbs opinions.--Gdubs (talk) 23:51, October 8, 2010 (UTC),
I made a long an complex response dealing with many different issues, and generally tried to stay on topic, but you guys took one of them, that you considered particular "offensive" and blow it completely out of proportion.
Just as a single comment on that you said Lvtdude. "Weak" means something without strength or something with lesser strength then another. When I say "they lost it because they were weak, it is a tautological truth.
The word "bastard" could have a more narrow meaning in English, nearreading the dictionary I see that it also meant someone born illegitimate of unmarried parent, but the word isn't used that way any-more as times have changes. Today it is almost exclusively used to dogs of different races.
Honestly I cannot understand why you Americans are so quick to be offended. I admit I often act a little provocative, but the way you are acting have no warrant.
Tell me this honestly. When you head that your former president had had an affair with a cheap slut, and when all the details came forward about how she saved the evidence for years, how did you feel? And why did you feel it?
Honestly if a man have an affair it can be of relevance only to his wife, she is the only one that is allowed to be offended by it, because it is simply not your business if you are not involved. Answer me this, because this is one of the cases where I fundamentally do not understand you:
Why are you so quick to take offence of things you aren't even involved in?
If any of you are an Indian, (or a native "American") then please say so and we can take it from there, but if not, then what the hell is your problem?-rphb- (talk) 10:35, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
@-rphb-, this is a public forum and a civil one. I'm not opposed to an occasional curse word but I feel that you generally pick words that need not be said. Just above you chose to use the term "cheap slut" in a context that was really unnecessary. Here you lump an entire nation of people together and call them easily offended. In a previous post you generalized by assuming that a particular ethnicity had a certain trait.
I do not want a discussion using derisive language then trying to justify it by using semantics. This isn't a court of law. I'm not debating this with you. I am explaining what I am seeing and asking you politely to choose your words more carefully. -- tierrie talk contr 18:22, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
I do not feel entitled to speak for anyone else, and as I have said I am not American, so I can provide only my personal opinion.
Why are you so quick to take offence of things you aren't even involved in?
The reason why you stand up or feel for people you are not related with is called empathy - the ability to place yourself in another person's situation. Therefore, if you make a remark that is offensive to a group of people I am in no way related to, I can still find your remark offensive and act accordingly.

Now, to the use of the word "weak". You're wrong that it is a mere description of a low degree of strength. It has negative connotations, such as lack of will as a kind of inherent fault that makes you less worthy, and the use is not restricted solely to English. Lastly, I happen to know about the plight of the Native Americans somewhat more than the common average, and therefore I suggest that you do not elaborate on the topic any further, for your own sake. Ygrain (talk) 17:23, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

-rphb-, you have admitted before that you purposely antagonize people. You admit that you have a disorder that results in you doing these things. Your about me page says that you are "cursed with a terrible personality; I am an obnoxious self-absorbed mania-depressive genius." It goes on to say, "I hate everything and everyone myself more then any, one day I dream of purging the world for all people like me."

When told you are offending, all you do is heap more offensive comments. I've tried to help you with this is the past, but you are a lost cause. Al Americans do not have the same reaction to anything. The American media might show a certain response to current affairs, but that hardly tells how everyone feels. You constantly lump specific peoples into categories and insult. To you, it doesn't matter who they are, if they aren't you. Just by my memory you've singled out Jews, Elves and Native Americans. Your fictional writings focus on slavery. You incorrectly use English words all the time, but don't think it's a big deal, but then when you are criticized for things you have said, you turn to dictionary definitions of words to defend yourself!

For one, the term "bastard" means a son from unwed parents to most people. I work in the veterinary field, and I can tell you truthfully that we do not use the term bastard to define the pedigree status of dogs. The term exists, yes, but it is not commonly used. Referring to an entire people as "weak" can not be written off as a simple estimate of their physical strength when it will be taken by any reading that you are insulting their fortitude. Native Americans were severely outnumbered, and had inferior weaponry. They weren't a weak people. They were, and still are, a proud people that were treated mercilessly. Their plight is easily as offensive as any perpetrated upon any people throughout history. Your insensitivity is shocking, to say the least. You won't be able to philosophize your way out of this. Your words are mean-spirited, and no amount of word-smithing will convince me other-wise. LVTDUDE (talk) 17:59, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what. Troll is now a disorder? One learns something new everyday.Dorquemada (talk) 21:01, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


I think it is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism. I try to make everyone to hate me, so I can hate them in return and thereby hating myself less. It is easier to deal with stereotypes and box definitions. I find it very hard to hate a person I actually get to know.
While I hate a lot of archetypes and ideologies I am the only person that I truly hate as a person.
I’m a hate monger, and like all hate mongers I am so, because I truly just hate myself.
Perhaps the solution is not to think in categories. I only insult categories; I don’t think I have ever gone personal.
It is not empathy to be insulted or offended on behalf of another, especially if that other might not him or herself be offended. I’m not saying that they won’t be, I’m saying that there is a chance that they won’t be, and that they should have a chance to make up their own mind.
Besides, why should you really be offended by what is said by a fool? In many different meanings that is what I truly am. So why make such a big fuss about it?-rphb- (talk) 19:32, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Anora and Howe, I'd like to say that while Howe was Loghain's ally, he was most certainly Anora's rival and enemy. Anora yielded power to her father yes, but then Howe supplanted her as her father's primary advisor, effectively pushing her aside and becoming more powerful than she. Furthermore, as Loghain himself later admits, Howe recommended that she be killed after she disagreed with their plans, and she was aware of that. Loghain never seriously considered the recommendation and he rejected it of course. Nevertheless that recommendation was the basis of her claim that her life was in danger, a claim that her father later dismissed as an exaggeration. Yet in one sense it might have been partially true. If something were to happen to her father and she were still in Howe's hands, I'd lay odds that she wouldn't have outlived the announcement of her father's death by much. Thus it was very much in her interest to set the Warden up to kill Howe. -Vim- (talk) 05:30, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.