peopleofthedas | How big is a division?

Alternately, you still haven't given any reasons for Alistair's rule to make any sense other than bloodlines (which you reject), and combat (which you claim is important, but not the only important criteria).

1) He's not "tainted by association" by a relationship with Loghain. Not an insurmountable factor, but a significant one
2) He has one other voice who is respected in the Landsmeet on his side
3) He's a Grey Warden and a good portion of the Landsmeet is spent convincing people that the Blight is the pertinent threat.

Fereldans follow those capable of leading them in wartime.

Frankly, Anora hasn't demonstrated that, for all that she has been a capable administrator during peacetime. But the moment the fighting started, she took a back seat to her father and let him start a reign of terror that trampled over the rights of the banns and weakened their defenses against the darkspawn until half the country was overrun. She's not the one who has been out there actually fighting the darkspawn and gathering an army.

if the sole qualification to being monarch of Ferelden is being a) a good warrior and b) a human who is not a mage, why not Cauthrien?

Um, because no one is putting Cauthrien forth as an option? We're limited by the menu of choices given us in-game, which are support Anora or support Alistair.

Assuming that Alistair's royal blood is a major factor seems pretty logical to me

A factor, because of tradition, but not a major one. Otherwise, why would the Landsmeet be willing to accept Anora, who is common-born, with equal alacrity.

Why? Because the Warden says so, and the Warden has proven him/herself as a fighter and leader.

Fereldans follow those capable of leading them in wartime. It's that simple.

Well the Warden says so seems to be mostly a concession to game mechanics/the ability of the PC to do anything within the game that they want. You figure that this is the same argument used as to why the Landsmeet gives a shit about what a casteless dwarf has to say. (Or likely would, in any other circumstance.) Or why what the warden does in Orzammar matters whatsoever. (Although at least there, they sort of explained it by giving the Paragon's approval to the winner/the deshyrs in deadlock over the vote.)

I definitely get the war-leader issue. Although it's not explicitly mentioned in game, Anora doesn't seem to be a war-leader (and Loghain is), and this was probably much of the reason for the regency. The same reason is almost certainly why the Landsmeet (plausibly) cares what a Warden might think. That said, Alistair isn't really a war leader. He's been following the PC around the whole time. He is a warrior, true. But not really a war leader in the same way that the PC (or Loghain, or TBH, even Cauthrien) is. He's a great meat shield, but even if you piss him off royally, he still follows you around. In fact, the only time he'll disobey you is if you let Loghain live. Otherwise, he does what you tell him to, even if it involves the death of everyone in Redcliffe village (other than Teagan), killing Connor, killing Isolde, etc.

Not a bad guy, but hardly a "leader" either. (Which Alistair is self aware enough to admit.)

Beyond that, the only "taints" we're given about Loghain are those that you uncover at Howe's place/that Anora gives you. If you bring up absolutely nothing at the Landsmeet (other than the Blight), you lose the argument. I'm not sure how "tainted" Anora really is by this association (or rather would be, if she chose to cover it all up). Admittedly everything might come out later and cause her huge problems, but as of the Landsmeet, it has not.

Anora mentions (repeatedly) that her lack of noble blood is an obstacle. It's why she's OK being married to Alistair or m!Cousland (at least according to her). Either of them (in her mind) legitimizes her claim to the throne. Admittedly, she may be crazy and not know much about Fereldan politics (although, again, most evidence in the game I think supports that she's a reasonable politician who knows what she's talking about). Alternately, the reason she gets any support at all (at least according to Eamon, herself, Loghain) is that she has ruled the country well. It's not so much that anyone can become Queen - it's that the daughter of the Hero of Ferelden who's been doing a good job for the last five years is allowed to stay Queen. At least if no one with a closer tie to the king shows up.

Admittedly, I don't think that noble blood is everything in Ferelden. With the Warden's support (provided that you don't let a hardened Alistair kill Loghain), Anora can stay Queen despite that she's a commoner. But that the Landsmeet is even willing to consider an outsider's claim seems like a pretty big sign that a lot of the Landsmeet really does care a lot about who the king is related to (esp. Eamon, who flat out tells you that much of his support is due to the whole "Alistair as the son of Maric" thing. Along with, I suppose, that Alistair was his foster-son, so he's more likely to be in a position of power with Alistair as King than Anora as Queen.)

I have to disagree. The fact that the Warden makes the deciding factor is a pure game mechanic and for most of the origins, it makes no freaking sense whatsoever, unless you're playing a human noble character. The same way it makes no sense that you decide the fate of the dalish or the dwarves or whoever. And Bioware does this in every game they make, Mass Effect, KoTOR and others all have the "Your PC decides the fact of everything, no matter if it makes sense or not because this is what our players like." It has no further meaning than the fact that Bioware knows what sells their games.

Alistair is a man, whose sole qualification for being king is his bloodline. This is a guy who refused to lead two grey wardens across Ferelden and making him king makes no sense whatsoever, unless you have a political stake in getting rid of the Queen and think you can control him, which is the best explination I think the bannorn (and the Warden) has for backing him. He has no training, expierence, or any of the skills necessary to run the country, without some major help from someone else. It would be like taking a fortune 500 company and handing it over to your brother's doofy best friend. It simply makes no sense if you are baising the decision on skill and merit.

The bannorn only has the Warden's opinon that he should be king, and really other than the game mechanic, I don't believe that they'd give two shits about the opinion of a warden who was a city elf, or a dalish elf or any of the other non human noble backgrounds.

Frankly, Anora hasn't demonstrated that, for all that she has been a capable administrator during peacetime.

This is completely ignoring game cannon and the evidence within the game. Even her enemies talk about how skilled of a Queen she is.

But the moment the fighting started, she took a back seat to her father and let him start a reign of terror that trampled over the rights of the banns and weakened their defenses against the darkspawn until half the country was overrun. She's not the one who has been out there actually fighting the darkspawn and gathering an army.

1) We've been round and round on this, but her father had the military. There isn't a hell of a lot she could have done. And she does move against him, when she can, despite the obvious fact that she loves him.

2)Fighting darkspawn is not the same skillset as being a good administrator and King or Queen. So why a Grey Warden would be at all qualified to choose who the next leader is of Ferelden makes no sense at all. Again, this is a typical bioware game mechanic.

Pretty much everything any character in this game does can be dismissed out of hand as "game mechanic." Why is Cailan a dolt? Because the devs made him that way. Why is Loghain a traitor? Because the devs made him that way. Why are elves shorter than humans? Because the devs made them that way. Why does the Landsmeet accept the Warden's say-so? Because the devs made the game that way.

It's ALL game mechanics. Every bit of it. It is, after all, a game.

I was under the impression that the purpose of this discussion was to give some context to those mechanics, so that these sorts of often incongruous details flowed in the greater narrative.

Clearly I was mistaken.

Perhaps someone should issue a memo on when it is and isn't okay to handwave something as being "game mechanics."

Are we doing it for the whole game, for every character and possibility? Or are we only doing it when it props up those characters we especially like?

After all, "it's game mechanics" make for dreadfully two-dimensional situations and we wouldn't want that, now would we?

Edited 2010-11-24 23:21 (UTC)

Look, I get that you're trying to provide context, but the context that you're arguing for makes no sense whatsoever. As the poster above pointed out, if they placed a premium on who was the biggest badass as the potential to be a wartime leader or who gets to choose the wartime leader, then Cauthrien would be in serious contention to be Queen.

None of what you're arguing for jives with what happened in Ferelden's past when the Bannorn chose Maric to be King. Maric got affirmed as king because of his bloodline, and Bryce defers because he's a royalist who follows the bloodline. There was no duel to decide who got to make that decision - and bloodline was the #1 factor in determining who got to rule.

And you have really not answered the question of why Alistair makes any sense as a choice to be king other than 1) his bloodline and 2) the mary sue built into the game mechanics told the bannorn so.

I'm sorry but that's not a very compelling argument, at least to me.

Actually it makes perfect sense, if you're looking at it from the perspective of the actual world we're told we're dealing with, rather than the world that conveniently happens to prop up ones favorite characters.

Since propping up this person or that's favorites is not anything I have any interest in doing (I would rather deal with the game and characters as they are presented, rather than how I wish it would be in order to prop up my faves) it's clear we're not going to agree on this.

LOL okay. You don't have an answer. Got it.

Actually, I've given my answer many times, but you've just decided to blithely handwave it with a "oh, that's just game mechanics" excuse because it doesn't gel with your "poor Loghain and Anora are the victims of a greedy, oppressive and avaricious nobility" pet theory that happens to be in contradiction to pretty much every bit of lore about Ferelden.

If you want to rewrite the entire culture of Ferelden to support your favorite characters, by all means, have at it. I'd just rather deal with what is actually there.

Actually, I've given my answer many times, but you've just decided to blithely handwave it with a "oh, that's just game mechanics" excuse because it doesn't gel with your "poor Loghain and Anora are the victims of a greedy, oppressive and avaricious nobility" pet theory that happens to be in contradiction to pretty much every bit of lore about Ferelden.

Yet another straw man argument. I mean really, this is a gross mischaracterization of what I've said. Unsurprising really, since you've been doing that throughout this entire discussion thread.

But you're right. There really isn't any point continuing as having a rational discussion is pretty much impossible with someone who ignores most of the points and arguments completely and totally misrepresents everything else.

I'll admit that I'm rather curious as to what you mean as well...

I mean, Eamon and Anora both make a claim about bloodlines being a big freaking deal as to why Alistair should be king (so this is from the game). You're denying that it's of any importance. So I'm confused as to how Prisoner's claim that this is important is "rewriting the entire culture of Ferelden to support your favorite characters".

Honestly, I'm not even sure how liking Anora vs. Alistair has anything to do with bloodlines. (And if it did, I'd assume that thinking that bloodlines are super important would support a pro-Alistair for king POV, as this and the support of your Warden are the only factors so far that have been given as to why he ought to be king, other than possibly that Anora may or may not be a good enough warrior. So do you mean to say that Prisoner is taking a too pro-Alistair stance? That just because she lusts after Alistair that she's totally making his bloodlines to be a bigger deal than it actually is so that she can put her f!Cousland self-insert on the throne without any guilt whatsoever?)

Ferelden nobility comes from the warlords of the Alamarri tribes, that's what the titles bann and arl are based on.

If they care for bloodlines than this probably something that they adopted from the neighbouring country Orlais, where bloodlines matter a great deal.

You could indeed say that concluding the Landsmeet with duel with winner having a say in who's going to lead from now on is a much older tradition than bloodlines. :D

Makes sense to me. Ferelden is one bad day away from barbarism. ;-)

Who you put on the throne depends entirely if you are willing to believe the claims that Anora is an adept ruler. I am willing but there is very little evidence for this in the game, especially with Anora wringing her hands and acting like a helpless daughter, intimidated by Daddy's presence.

I put her on the throne but I don't expect that to be free from troubles. I'm very fond of the hints in Witch Hunt about Redcliffe becoming a potential antagonist to Denerim. Very interesting.

I have no idea as to why the Fereldans would care about bloodlines. But Eamon sure seems to. Anora and Loghain also seem to think that they're an issue. Again, what the history is, I'm not sure. But in game, at least three of the characters we speak to seem fairly convinced that they're a bit deal.

Like, Eamon says at one point, "Teagan and I have a claim through marriage, but we would seem opportunists, no better than Loghain. Alistair's claim is by blood." which makes me think that at least Eamon is pretty damned sure that the whole "related to Maric" thing is a big deal. Maybe he's deluded. I have no idea. But I've been going with the assumption that he's not, as the bloodline issue is also commented on by Anora and Loghain.

As far as adept ruler goes (on Anora's part), we have Loghain claiming that she's great, Eamon claiming that she's great, Celene semi-in awe of her, and random other NPC's claiming that she's great. (And Eamon wants her gone badly, so I'm inclined to think that he's not all about the flattery.) There are a lot of people who seem to think that she's a great ruler, and no one who claims that she's crap. I'll admit that we don't see her working her magic, but how would one do this? Cut to scenes of her administering trade disputes? Have mini-balance the budget games? TBH, most of making a kingdom work has to be incredibly dull, so likely the game skipped all of that in favor of the "make everyone, even her enemies, talk about how awesome she is" approach. Because, really, does anyone want to see Anora bickering with merchants about the taxes that need to be levied for different types of leather? Probably not.

I don't see it as at all improbable that Redcliffe becomes antagonistic towards Denerim. Considering that RtO makes it pretty clear that Eamon wanted to get rid of Anora (as she lacked royal blood/might be infertile), I'd imagine that both Anora and Eamon spend most of the epilogue plotting how to rid the world of one another. (I crack up every time they're about to go off and "talk". I keep imagining one of them coming back going "well...Eamon just died. Funny that...") Honestly, the game sets it up so that all endings are going to be a bit crappy.

I mean:

Grey Warden + Anyone = probably no heir
Anora alone = probably no heir (as refuses to remarry)
Grey Warden + Alistair = definitely no heir (as odds of conception are close to zero)

Alistair alone = fairly easy to walk all over puppet king
Anora alone = ruthless Machievellian Queen (although she does balance the budget...)
Alistair + Cousland = still easy to walk over king
Anora + Cousland = still ruthless Queen who probably spends 95% of her time fighting with her husband
Hardened Alistair + Anora = golden age (OK, so maybe not horrible...although still probably no heirs)

The game really wants you to be screwed, IMHO. Although you can get a "golden age" if you either marry a hardened Alistair to Anora, or marry a m!Cousland to Anora and "get along". (Either of which, I suppose, supports the idea that Anora's a pretty good ruler if her personality is tempered by someone who is a bit more compassionate.)

(no subject)

zute - 2010-11-25 15:50 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

niniane - 2010-11-25 16:05 (UTC) - Expand

While I don't agree with the idea that "he/she who wins in combat shall run the country", it fits Fereldens traditions. Their ancestors are the Alamarri tribes and this sounds like a very old tradition.

I don't like putting Alistair on the throne except for when he's engaged to Anora. I like him, he's my favourite character and has a good heart, he has his darker sides, he's emotional but I really don't see a good reason for putting him in charge of an almost destroyed country other than personal ambition. But that's just my thoughts about it.

However, Cauthrien being such a tough fight has nothing to do with her ablilities as a fighter. It is a game mechanic, they want you to go to Fort Drakon and while that part is fun, I always kill Cauthrien because my Wardens would not risk being imprisoned, so she bites the dust then and there.

While I don't agree with the idea that "he/she who wins in combat shall run the country", it fits Fereldens traditions. Their ancestors are the Alamarri tribes and this sounds like a very old tradition.

See this just doesn't seem consistent with what we actually see in the game. I mean, there's tons of talk from a lot of different people about the importance of bloodlines. No one talks about "the biggest asskicker gets to make the decisions."

I don't like putting Alistair on the throne except for when he's engaged to Anora. I like him, he's my favourite character and has a good heart, he has his darker sides, he's emotional but I really don't see a good reason for putting him in charge of an almost destroyed country other than personal ambition. But that's just my thoughts about it.

Yes, this is exactly what I think too.

As far as Cauthrien being an asskicker, it sort of makes sense in that Loghain is a pretty smart guy who values skill above bloodline, so I doubt that he'd have someone as his second who wasn't pretty tough in her own right. She's also spent her life training as a soldier so she'd probably be damned good. But you are right about that being a game mechanic to force players to go to Fort Drakon. No one here is seriously saying that she should be Queen because of how tough she is in the game. She was being used as a counter example - that if being the biggest asskicker were the main qualificaiton of making that sort of decision, that logically she'd be in contention, sort of illustrating why that theory of "the best blade decides everything" doesn't make sense.

See this just doesn't seem consistent with what we actually see in the game. I mean, there's tons of talk from a lot of different people about the importance of bloodlines. No one talks about "the biggest asskicker gets to make the decisions."
Hehe, that's why I said it's could be a really old tradition, one that goes beyond Calenhad's legend all the way back to the barbarian warlords. A tradition that no one would consider if it weren't desperate times.

In my mind Alfstanna says "It shall be fought according to ancient tradition...". I think, it's a nice addition to the lore. :D

Of course, YMMV.

I have to disagree. The fact that the Warden makes the deciding factor is a pure game mechanic and for most of the origins, it makes no freaking sense whatsoever, unless you're playing a human noble character. The same way it makes no sense that you decide the fate of the dalish or the dwarves or whoever. And Bioware does this in every game they make, Mass Effect, KoTOR and others all have the "Your PC decides the fact of everything, no matter if it makes sense or not because this is what our players like." It has no further meaning than the fact that Bioware knows what sells their games.

Your PC decides the fate of everything because that's the genre convention of RPG's, and has been ever since Gary Gygax wrote First Edition D&D.

I play City of Heroes. In the villain expansion, the whole premise is that you're the mysterious Destined One, who has the potential to change the fate of the world. In Fallout, your character is the mysterious one with the fate of the world in his hands. It's what you do. Yes, of course it doesn't make sense historically that a member of an oppressed ethnic minority should be able to decide who the monarch is--any more than it makes sense historically that a four-foot tall guy throwing a gold ring into a volcano is going to decide who wins a global war.

In the context of the world that Bioware created however, the fact that the Warden makes the call is justified by everything you do in the game that leads up to that moment and you having the reputation that makes your opinion carry weight. That's kind of the whole point. If you're going to dismiss that as just game mechanics, then the entire story and setting and world collapse because all of it is leading up to the story that Gaider and Co. want to tell.

Well, yes and no I think.

I mean, I think it's fair to say "yeah, your Warden is special, so what they do is more influential than what a normal human would do"

But I'm not sure that it's unfair to say "game mechanics may let your Warden make decisions that might not make 100% sense in a semi-realistic environment". Just because, as you said, the PC does decide the fate of everything. But in a quasi-realistic world, no one would decide the fate of everything. So assuming that all Warden decisions are 100% the same as a normal political process seems kind of wacky.

So assuming that all Warden decisions are 100% the same as a normal political process seems kind of wacky.

I'm not saying that at all.

I'm saying that the fact that the Warden is allowed to make the decision at all is completely unrealistic outside of the context of the game, which assumes that you're going to suspend a certain amount of disbelief to play in the first place. If you're arguing that it doesn't make sense for the Landsmeet to accept Alistair as King because the Warden shouldn't be making the decision, you might as well say that there shouldn't be a Blight because the laws of physics say that something the size of the archdemon is can't fly?

Ah, thanks for clarifying. Yes, in that case, we're in total agreement. ;)

In the context of the world that Bioware created however, the fact that the Warden makes the call is justified by everything you do in the game that leads up to that moment and you having the reputation that makes your opinion carry weight. That's kind of the whole point. If you're going to dismiss that as just game mechanics, then the entire story and setting and world collapse because all of it is leading up to the story that Gaider and Co. want to tell.

My point is basically this - the fact that the warden gets to make that decision at the landsmeet makes no sense in the context and history that's presented in the rest of the game by DG and co. - unless you're playing a human noble. The game is totally inconsisent within itself - bascially because they are trying to shoehorn six different origins down one path that really only makes sense for one origin.

I mean, in the context of the game city elves are hated, dalish elves are distrusted, mages are feared and no one who is a human seems to care about dwarves or their opinions. But all of the sudden, everyone gives a shit about what that character's opinion is because they are a grey warden and can kick Loghain's ass? From most of what we see, most people are entirely indifferent to the grey wardens.

I don't buy that somehow there's this great tradition in Ferelden of the biggest asskicker in a duel gets to pick the king. This is not consistant with what we see in the books about how Maric became king. It's a game mechanic and not particularly evidence of anything. Don't get me wrong, I get trying to figure out how to work this game mechanic into the story in a way that makes sense, but this doesn't make sense to me when viewed with the attitudes, dialogue, history and context of everything else presented.

But all of the sudden, everyone gives a shit about what that character's opinion is because they are a grey warden and can kick Loghain's ass? From most of what we see, most people are entirely indifferent to the grey wardens.

Sure, they were--right up until the point when Lothering and most of Southern Ferelden were obliterated by the darkspawn. The nobles are probably pissing their pants at this point, and If Maeferath came back from the dead and said, "I'll save you from the Blight," they'd consider it. The one thing people do know is that Grey Wardens defeat Blights. They'll worry about what comes later...later.

That, to me, is why Awakening was so disappointing, and why I feel like there's so much room for fanfic. I want to find out what happens 2, 5, 10 years down the line when Alistair and Queen Cousland still haven't produced an heir. I want to see the backlash to the crown giving the mages more freedom. Eventually, I want to write about the political impact of the King's mistress and closest advisor being an elf. But during the Landsmeet, it's a crisis, and people are panicked, and not thinking about the long-term consequences.

I don't buy that somehow there's this great tradition in Ferelden of the biggest asskicker in a duel gets to pick the king. This is not consistant with what we see in the books about how Maric became king.

Maric's primary qualification to rule was that he was Moira's son. He shored that up by not getting killed, and by being able to intimidate the opposition--including the Bannorn--in some cases by relieving them of their heads. By all accounts, he wasn't a particularly good ruler for most of his reign, but he's remembered for being an effective leader of the rebellion and thus, "Maric the Savior". Going back even further, the Theirin line began when Calenhad busted enough heads for the nobility to fall in line behind him.

No, if the devs were truly consistent, only the Cousland would be able to get away with playing kingmaker. But in that case, you'd also have to pretty much rewrite the game, because why would the dwarves allow an outsider, or a casteless, or a kinslayer to crown their next king? Why would the Dalish even speak to non-elves? If you apply that level of logic, the whole game falls apart, so I think you have to accept certain improbabilities, like a slender 5' tall woman dual-wielding Maric's Sword and Starfang, or like the human nobles of Ferelden letting a non-human noble hero decide the fate of the country.

Sure, they were--right up until the point when Lothering and most of Southern Ferelden were obliterated by the darkspawn. The nobles are probably pissing their pants at this point, and If Maeferath came back from the dead and said, "I'll save you from the Blight," they'd consider it. The one thing people do know is that Grey Wardens defeat Blights. They'll worry about what comes later...later.

Ah this is a great point - and one I totally hadn't considered. This I buy as a reason for why they suddenly are starting to listen to a warden's opinion. It makes a lot of sense to me, because it fits the very fickle and self preservation side of human nature quite well.

That, to me, is why Awakening was so disappointing, and why I feel like there's so much room for fanfic. I want to find out what happens 2, 5, 10 years down the line when Alistair and Queen Cousland still haven't produced an heir. I want to see the backlash to the crown giving the mages more freedom. Eventually, I want to write about the political impact of the King's mistress and closest advisor being an elf. But during the Landsmeet, it's a crisis, and people are panicked, and not thinking about the long-term consequences.

You and me both. I would absolutely love to see the long term fallout of these rushed decisions. And if you write the story of the fallout about the King's closest advisor being an elf, sign me the hell up because I would love to read this fic.

And you are right that the game, by it's very design, requires a suspension of disbelief. I do get why people are trying to make these game mechanics fit into the context of the game - I just think that some make more sense than others. Awarding the decision to the biggest asskicker doesn't seem like a plausable explination to me given the context of everything else. People freaking out and giving more weight to the warden's opinion than maybe they should because they're panicked - yes this works for me.

I've personally always been rather curious of the fall out of a Warden who made terrible decisions and/or solved things just by killing people.

I find it very, very strange that you can go the brawl route for the Landsmeet and *still* choose who the king is (or queen, or marry the king, or marry the queen, or make Alistair and Anora marry). I can only imagine that once everything blows over that people are all like "eh...no, you only won because we were afraid you would kill everyone" especially if the Warden is still in a position of authority in the government (Chancellor/lover of Alistair, wife of Alistair, husband of Anora, chancellor in Anora's government but fighting with her).

This is completely ignoring game cannon and the evidence within the game. Even her enemies talk about how skilled of a Queen she is.

I see this as partially a failing of the devs, because it's all telling without showing. What, specifically, does anyone say Anora has done that shows her competence to rule? Has she implemented any new policies? Changed tax rates? Negotiated trade agreements? Signed any major treaties? We don't know, because they never tell us. All we ever get is "she's a competent ruler", but what we actually see in game is a country that's collapsing in the face of a major threat, and a queen who appears to be doing nothing to combat it. (Maybe she is, but as far as anything we see in game, she doesn't do anything proactive during the Blight. She doesn't make any stirring speeches, doesn't try to end the civil war by doing anything other than talking to one guy). The only thing we do know as absolute fact is that Anora has not been able to do the one job that a queen consort absolutely must: to produce an heir. (And yes, I realize that it could be and probably was Cailan's fault, but no matter how the devs try to spin it, we're still dealing with the assumption that if a marriage doesn't produce children, it's the woman's fault until explicitly proven otherwise.)

The other guy is mostly an unknown quantity, true. But he looks the part; he's the son of a very famous father and the last of the dynasty that's ruled Ferelden since it was a nation, and most of all, he's a member of the organization with the specific skill set needed to combat the threat the country is facing RIGHT NOW. The idea that the nobility would support someone who was perceived as a military leader over the widow of the late king strikes me as quite plausible.

Niniane has a great post above that deals with this, but I'm pretty much going to echo what she said. It's true that there's a lot of telling and not so much showing, but this is not Anora's story. It's the warden's. And most of what would make Anora a good ruler happened in the five years prior to Ostagar, and probably wouldn't be very interesting to observe as it would mostly be administrative stuff. A lot of people praise her skill - Eamon, Alistair, Loghain, Celene as well as random NPC's - although I do agree that it would be nice if they were more specific about what she's good at.

We do, however, get a glimpse in the game of an intelligent and savvy and ruthless and flexible woman - which strikes me as the sort of person who would make a good ruler. And the differences between her and Alistair's answers when you ask them at the Landsmeet about why each of them should be in charge are huge - she comes across as far more reasonable and articulate than him.

But I do agree that Alistair makes a great looking package to Ferelden nobility. Anora hasn't produced an heir, which totally gets dumped on her unfairly, her father has completely undermined her authorty by siezing control, and he's one of the Grey Wardens. Alistair is the sort of dude that would appeal to a panicked group of nobles that use the idea of superority of bloodlines to keep their own priviledged place at the top of the food chain. I think it's entirely plausable that the nobles would go for him over her, but really I think it's a terrible decision overall.

What I'm saying though is that really, when you take everything into context, without the biases of the nobility towards favoring bloodlines and their panic about the blight, Alistair is totally unqualified to be the king (at least without some major help from either Anora or the Warden). He's not a leader and defers at every possible opportunity. He has none of administrative skills to rule, hasn't been trained for it, and has no real desire to do it unless you harden him and piss him off. To me, it's sort of like taking Derek Jeter and making him the head of Ford Motor company - yeah he's popular and good looking and probably a nice guy, but that doesn't make him qualified to put him a job where hundreds of thousands of people depend on making complex decisions.

Don't get me wrong, I do see why some wardens would pick him over Anora - like your city elf example before, but that almost strikes me as "Okay this is the lesser of two bad choices, and I'm going with him because there's no third option" more than "Alistair would be a great leader."