240 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
You seriously, seriously believe his selling of elves to Tevinter blood mages is justifiable?  Seriously?  Leave aside the fact that it is immoral.  It is also illegal under Fereldan law.  And you want to hew the line in other circumstances (such as about a certain character's "desertion" though he breaks no laws by doing so), so please explain this discrepancy.

Yes I believe it to be justified. Legality doesn't mean much in war. Neither does morality, when push comes to shove.
And the desertion I was talking about was not legal, though it was still a desertion of the land he claimed to care about and that my character cared about.

And I wrote a long time ago an essay as to why I believe this case was justified. I am too lazy to write it for you again. I might waste my time finding it for you if you are so determined.

[Tirigon]

Lord Gremlin wrote...

Also, in Origins Darkspawn never attacked each other, no civil wars, nothing like that. Just another proof that Architect is the biggest douche in universe. He may be polite and intelligent, but he's still a douche.
In a way Architect is similar to Loghain, both decided that they know what's good for everybody and didn't give a **** about anything around them.  But while Loghain may acknowledge that he was wrong (he's not hopeless after all), Architect is a self-confident son of a B, who doesn't even consider the possibility of being wrong.

Wrong.

The "common"Darkspawn don´t have free will, they are enthralled by the Old Gods. The Architect tries to free them.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


And I wrote a long time ago an essay as to why I believe this case was justified. I am too lazy to write it for you again. I might waste my time finding it for you if you are so determined.

Please do. I would be interested in that.

[Giggles_Manically]

Wow this started about Loghain, and now we are covering Alistair, Slavery, race, morallity in war time. Crazy.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


And I wrote a long time ago an essay as to why I believe this case was justified. I am too lazy to write it for you again. I might waste my time finding it for you if you are so determined.

Please do. I would be interested in that.

I might do it for Addai, but I don't think I would do it for you

I think it was in the Awakening  non-spoiler section and that was before Awakening came out. So it's been a very long time, I don't know if I can find it.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
You seriously, seriously believe his selling of elves to Tevinter blood mages is justifiable?  Seriously?  Leave aside the fact that it is immoral.  It is also illegal under Fereldan law.  And you want to hew the line in other circumstances (such as about a certain character's "desertion" though he breaks no laws by doing so), so please explain this discrepancy.

Yes I believe it to be justified. Legality doesn't mean much in war. Neither does morality, when push comes to shove.
And the desertion I was talking about was not legal, though it was still a desertion of the land he claimed to care about and that my character cared about.

And I wrote a long time ago an essay as to why I believe this case was justified. I am too lazy to write it for you again. I might waste my time finding it for you if you are so determined.

I would read it if you found it, but it's probably not worth your time as it's highly unlikely I'm going to be convinced.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I might do it for Addai, but I don't think I would do it for you

I knew I should have pretended I was a girl that looks like MorriganB):P:P:P

[Xandurpein]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
You seriously, seriously believe his selling of elves to Tevinter blood mages is justifiable?  Seriously?  Leave aside the fact that it is immoral.  It is also illegal under Fereldan law.  And you want to hew the line in other circumstances (such as about a certain character's "desertion" though he breaks no laws by doing so), so please explain this discrepancy.

Yes I believe it to be justified. Legality doesn't mean much in war. Neither does morality, when push comes to shove.
And the desertion I was talking about was not legal, though it was still a desertion of the land he claimed to care about and that my character cared about.

And I wrote a long time ago an essay as to why I believe this case was justified. I am too lazy to write it for you again. I might waste my time finding it for you if you are so determined.

It really comes down to two differing philosophical principles governing how we view ethics in war.

The theory of Limited War, claims that war is just if fought according to agreed principles that limit collateral damage and is generally fought in an "ethical" way.

The theory of Just War, claims that war is just if it is fought for a just cause and leads to a just end.

These two principles often clash. Is it just to risk loosing a war against "evil" by adhering slavishly to "ethical" ways of waging war? Attempts to reconcile these two theories often led to  re****s that seems ludicorus to us now, like how the church once wanted to limit the use of "evil" weapons, like crossbows, against other christian nations, but it was fine to use agianst infidels.

Selling slaves to win a war that otherwise might be lost is indefensible under the principle of Limited War, but can be defended under the principle of Just War.

Needless to say, there are big problems of either theory in practice, one of the more glaring problemsis of course finding a common ground for determining what a just war, or ethical warfare is.

[Tirigon]

I judge by the theory of "Just War" but I still oppose slavery - because engaging in practices like that means that the Darkspawn are actually the good ones in the war at hand. If you do things that are worse than what your enemy does then how is your war a just one?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Xandurpein wrote...
It really comes down to two differing philosophical principles governing how we view ethics in war.

The theory of Limited War, claims that war is just if fought according to agreed principles that limit collateral damage and is generally fought in an "ethical" way.

The theory of Just War, claims that war is just if it is fought for a just cause and leads to a just end.

These two principles often clash. Is it just to risk loosing a war against "evil" by adhering slavishly to "ethical" ways of waging war? Attempts to reconcile these two theories often led to  re****s that seems ludicorus to us now, like how the church once wanted to limit the use of "evil" weapons, like crossbows, against other christian nations, but it was fine to use agianst infidels.

Selling slaves to win a war that otherwise might be lost is indefensible under the principle of Limited War, but can be defended under the principle of Just War.

Needless to say, there are big problems of either theory in practice, one of the more glaring problemsis of course finding a common ground for determining what a just war, or ethical warfare is.

Very good point.

The reason I do not think the theory of limited war can be applied in this case is because, like you said, limited warfare is usually done in bilateral or multilateral agreements. Whether in the past or today. whether legally or via conventions. Limited warfare generally needs or expects reciprocity.

The Blight holds no such concerns and no agreements can be made with it. So there is no way of establishing an agreed "ethical" way to fight when the Blight wants to exterminate everything.

That is unless one wants to assume his percieved "ethical duty" and be perfectly fine with the idea of allowing Ferelden to burn for said ideals. A position I personally do not espouse at all.  

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

I judge by the theory of "Just War" but I still oppose slavery - because engaging in practices like that means that the Darkspawn are actually the good ones in the war at hand. If you do things that are worse than what your enemy does then how is your war a just one?

Because slavery of a few individuals is worse than exterminating an entire nation? How?

[Tirigon]

We should also remember that selling a few slaves is hardly an event that can change the tides of war.



Now, if Loghain would get a few hundred bloodmages to fight the Darkspawn, and the slaves are provided for use as power to burn the darkspawn with the mage´s spells, THEN one might argue that it is an action that is useful to win.



But as it is, no..

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Because slavery of a few individuals is worse than exterminating an entire nation? How?

Because slavery is committed against your own people. I wouldn´t mind it if Loghain enslaved Orlaisians or captured Darkspawn...

The thing is, Loghain wants to be regent. That means he´s responsible for the well-being of his people - of ALL his people, including the elves.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Because slavery of a few individuals is worse than exterminating an entire nation? How?

Because slavery is committed against your own people. I wouldn´t mind it if Loghain enslaved Orlaisians or captured Darkspawn...

The thing is, Loghain wants to be regent. That means he´s responsible for the well-being of his people - of ALL his people, including the elves.

But there was no other alternative. He couldn't possibly start raiding Orlais for slaves, that was unfeasible. The easiest target were the elves.
And captured darkspawn slaves? Are you serious? You expect to be able to sell living darkspawn prisoners?

Yes, and his responsability for all of his people might require the sacrifice of a few, to save the many. In my opinion, he would be doing his duty of protecting the whole, if he is sacrificing the few.  

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

I judge by the theory of "Just War" but I still oppose slavery - because engaging in practices like that means that the Darkspawn are actually the good ones in the war at hand. If you do things that are worse than what your enemy does then how is your war a just one?

Because slavery of a few individuals is worse than exterminating an entire nation? How?

This vein of discussion is moot in Loghain's case, because he has artificially hampered his war effort due to his paranoia about the Orlesians, not only by refusing entry to the Orlesian Wardens and chevaliers, but by abandoning the entire of the king's vanguard to the darkspawn.

Loghain gets no "just war" points.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But there was no other alternative. He couldn't possibly start raiding Orlais for slaves, that was unfeasible. The easiest target were the elves.
And captured darkspawn slaves? Are you serious? You expect to be able to sell living darkspawn prisoners?

No, I was just saying that I wouldn´t mind if he did. I do not think it was possible (though, living darkspawn might be interesting for mages or Grey Warden to research more about them, or to test new spells:devil::devil:)

Yes, and his responsability for all of his people might require the sacrifice of a few, to save the many. In my opinion, he would be doing his duty of protecting the whole, if he is sacrificing the few.  

That´s our differring opinions again. I believe a ruler has to protect ALL his people, including the few.


What is more interesting to discuss is, what makes you believe the sales did any good? The problem in Ferelden was the lack of warriors, not the lack of equipment that could be bought. I don´t see how a little more gold earned by the slave deal would help.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

I judge by the theory of "Just War" but I still oppose slavery - because engaging in practices like that means that the Darkspawn are actually the good ones in the war at hand. If you do things that are worse than what your enemy does then how is your war a just one?

Because slavery of a few individuals is worse than exterminating an entire nation? How?

This vein of discussion is moot in Loghain's case, because he has artificially hampered his war effort due to his paranoia about the Orlesians, not only by refusing entry to the Orlesian Wardens and chevaliers, but by abandoning the entire of the king's vanguard to the darkspawn.

Loghain gets no "just war" points.

Whether you believe him right or wrong, he did this because he thought it was in the best interest of Ferelden.

Neverra lost its independence to Orlais after  the 3rd Blight under similar circumstances. It was no paranoia. It was a political and strategic calculation that any one in his right mind would have at least thought of as a possible contingency. In addition, he did not htink it was a blight until later.
As for abandoning the King's vanguard. There was a high chance that had he charged, he would have caused the destruction of all of Ferelden's armies and not only one part. His only mistake was not to get rid of Cailan before Ostagar.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...
What is more interesting to discuss is, what makes you believe the sales did any good? The problem in Ferelden was the lack of warriors, not the lack of equipment that could be bought. I don´t see how a little more gold earned by the slave deal would help.

Yes they lacked equipment. The Tevinter mage said so. Anhd the redcliff emissary also said they were lacking in proper equipment and needed money.

There was a lack of warriors true, but the lack of equipments and supplies was more urgent.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Whether you believe him right or wrong, he did this because he thought it was in the best interest of Ferelden.

You can't be prissy about principles on the one hand, and then say that anything is justifable because the Blight represents an existential threat to thousands of people.

Neither does the logic hold that all of Ferelden's armies (save Eamon's) united under the king's banner and the leadership of the Hero of River Dane could not have defeated the horde at Ostagar, but allowing them to ravage the entire south while waging a civil war in the north is going to somehow lead to their defeat.

Modifié par Addai67, 03 juin 2010 - 09:14 .

[Xandurpein]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

I judge by the theory of "Just War" but I still oppose slavery - because engaging in practices like that means that the Darkspawn are actually the good ones in the war at hand. If you do things that are worse than what your enemy does then how is your war a just one?

Because slavery of a few individuals is worse than exterminating an entire nation? How?

This vein of discussion is moot in Loghain's case, because he has artificially hampered his war effort due to his paranoia about the Orlesians, not only by refusing entry to the Orlesian Wardens and chevaliers, but by abandoning the entire of the king's vanguard to the darkspawn.

Loghain gets no "just war" points.

As I pointed out, one of the glaring problems with the theory of "Just war" is the problems involved in determining what a just cause is.

As for Loghain abandoning the King's vanguard. You should have been involved in enough of these debates by know to know that there really is no conclusive evidence that Loghain did or did not act tactically sound in withdrawing. There are indications, but no real evidence. Making factual statements like that is not exactly helpful.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yes they lacked equipment. The Tevinter mage said so. Anhd the redcliff emissary also said they were lacking in proper equipment and needed money.

There was a lack of warriors true, but the lack of equipments and supplies was more urgent.

Ok. Didn´t know that, I don´t listen to either of these two:police:
In the tevinter case because I just kill them asap, and in the Redcliff case because I don´t plan on ever using Redcliff soldiers in the final battle^^

However there would have been less immoral ways to earn money. After all, Loghain and his supporters were not exactly poor...

Modifié par Tirigon, 03 juin 2010 - 09:18 .

[Tirigon]

Xandurpein wrote...


As for Loghain abandoning the King's vanguard. You should have been involved in enough of these debates by know to know that there really is no conclusive evidence that Loghain did or did not act tactically sound in withdrawing. There are indications, but no real evidence. Making factual statements like that is not exactly helpful.

The game makes it clear that you are supposed to believe his retreat was treason.


Of course, you could argue that´s because Eamon and Flemeth are conspirators who want to use you to overthrow Loghain:innocent:

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Whether you believe him right or wrong, he did this because he thought it was in the best interest of Ferelden.

You can't be prissy about principles on the one hand, and then say that anything is justifable because the Blight represents an existential threat to thousands of people.

Neither does the logic hold that all of Ferelden's armies (save Eamon's) united under the king's banner and the leadership of the Hero of River Dane could not have defeated the horde at Ostagar, but allowing them to ravage the entire south while waging a civil war in the north is going to somehow lead to their defeat.

How  am I prissy about principles on one hand?

Gaider already said that the Horde at Ostagar was larger than all of them thought and they were much mroe organised. RtO subtly showed that the battle was probably not winnable. We may never know, but I do not expect Loghain to rush in a battle he was not sure to win, just to save an idiot. Thus, he did not charge and that was a good decision in my opinion. As Sun Tzu said, a good general is one who avoids the battles he is not sure to win.

As for the civil war. He was going to deal with the enemies within, before facing the enemies without.
I only wonder what those who participated in the civil war on the other side were thinking. Fighting Ferelden's greatest general while the darkspawn are ravaging the south.

[Xandurpein]

Tirigon wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...


As for Loghain abandoning the King's vanguard. You should have been involved in enough of these debates by know to know that there really is no conclusive evidence that Loghain did or did not act tactically sound in withdrawing. There are indications, but no real evidence. Making factual statements like that is not exactly helpful.

The game makes it clear that you are supposed to believe his retreat was treason.


Of course, you could argue that´s because Eamon and Flemeth are conspirators who want to use you to overthrow Loghain:innocent:

I nkow that the game is written so I am supposed to belive that it was treason. That is NOT the same as saying that the game makes it clear to me as an observer that it was indeed betrayal. The game is full of people lying to you to stear you in a certain path, and Flemeth is one of the worst.

[Master Shiori]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

As for abandoning the King's vanguard. There was a high chance that had he charged, he would have caused the destruction of all of Ferelden's armies and not only one part. His only mistake was not to get rid of Cailan before Ostagar.

Without doubt.

The army at Ostagar was doomed from the moment the battle started. Loghain actually salvaged something from what could have been a total disaster.

As for getting rid of Cailan before Ostagar.. I'm not sure that would have been a good idea.
Loghain had a hard time rallying the nobles to his banner even when he could blame the darkspawn for King's death (and nobody could prove otherwise, even if they suspected that Loghain's survival was quite convenient). Disposing of Cailan before the battle would have caused chaos and probably made the darkspawn victory a foregone conclusion. Ostagar provided him with a tragedy that he could use to rally the nation behind him, much as Pearl Harbour provided Roosevelt with the support he needed to enter WWII.