1092 réponses à ce sujet

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

They were coming because THEY WERE INVITED BY THE KING OF FERELDEN!!!!  This was no invasion, being done on their own - they were asked for assistance, and gave it.

Loghain doesn't like that - and what follows is his actions at Ostagar, with Eamon, and thereafter, all to stop something his legitimate king legally did.

So in your eyes, does that mean that if a man is king that he can absolutely do nothing wrong because everything he does is legitmate and legal?

Well, yes and no.

In some feudal societies, the king actually COULD do nothing illegal, since he was the one who decided what was and was not legal.  So, in that respect, then anything he does is legal.

Is it always "right"?  Assuming you mean morally right, of course not.  That doesn't change the fact that, as the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not legal, he has the right to order it done, and anyone who doesn't carry out his orders is, technically, guilty of treason.

Example - the King of England certainly had the "right" to impose any tax he wanted on the American colonies.  Those who fought against it were, in the eyes of England, traitors - but as an American, I sure think they were doing the right thing.

Okay, we agree in this, I think.

As for Caillan spcifically here, do you disagree that the King had the right to request aid from another nation to defend against a Darkspawn invasion that threatened his nation (actual blight or not)?

No, I think it was in his right to ask for help. I won't pretend I'm up to snuff on my history, but I would imagine that if the Americans had turned around a couple of years after the Revolution and asked the King for some military help that some would question if it was a good idea to trust the King's armies on American soil. Maybe it would have been fine, and (given my knowledge of history) maybe there was an event that occured that compelled America to do just that. It seems like a bad idea, but I can't argue history with you because I don't know it very well.

[Khavos]

FiliusMartis wrote...

I don't think anybody's arguing about the Orlesian forces' past. They occupied Ferelden and committed severe atrocities. However, I think the problem here is that there is no evidence that Orlais was planning on repeating this. Loghain percieved Orlais as a threat, and people are free to agree, but there is no direct evidence in the game that Orlais was planning an invasion. They are a possible threat, a perceived threat, but not a definite one.

Even if there was evidence that Orlais was planning to do just that, people here still seem to refuse to acknowledge the fact that Blights are big, gigantic, huge deals.  Blights are far, far, far worse than anything Orlais could ever do in a thousand years of occupying Ferelden. 

Orlais and the Blight need to stop being treated as equal threats.  The Blight is a tornado.  Orlais is a breeze.  Loghain was worried about possibly, someday, catching cold from the draught instead of worrying about the tornado rampaging through his front garden. 

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...
No, I think it was in his right to ask for help. I won't pretend I'm up to snuff on my history, but I would imagine that if the Americans had turned around a couple of years after the Revolution and asked the King for some military help that some would question if it was a good idea to trust the King's armies on American soil. Maybe it would have been fine, and (given my knowledge of history) maybe there was an event that occured that compelled America to do just that. It seems like a bad idea, but I can't argue history with you because I don't know it very well.

I think you're spot on here.  In fact, fledgling America fought another war with England not long after the Revolution - 2, in fact.  So I don't think ANYONE would have really thought it was a good idea to ask England for help at that point.

However, it would still have been treason for those people to plot to overthrow the government if they DID ask for that help.

After all, it's always treason when you try to overthrow your ruling government - even if you win, in which case, you basically pardon yourself.

Here, in the end, Loghain didn't win, and can be punished for his treason.

[maxernst]

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...
No, I think it was in his right to ask for help. I won't pretend I'm up to snuff on my history, but I would imagine that if the Americans had turned around a couple of years after the Revolution and asked the King for some military help that some would question if it was a good idea to trust the King's armies on American soil. Maybe it would have been fine, and (given my knowledge of history) maybe there was an event that occured that compelled America to do just that. It seems like a bad idea, but I can't argue history with you because I don't know it very well.

I think you're spot on here.  In fact, fledgling America fought another war with England not long after the Revolution - 2, in fact.  So I don't think ANYONE would have really thought it was a good idea to ask England for help at that point.

However, it would still have been treason for those people to plot to overthrow the government if they DID ask for that help.

After all, it's always treason when you try to overthrow your ruling government - even if you win, in which case, you basically pardon yourself.

Here, in the end, Loghain didn't win, and can be punished for his treason.

Didn't the Confederacy try to get Britsh help?  Maybe not actual military forces, though...American history isn't really my strong point either.  Of course, since they were fighting the Union, it's perhaps more akin to the Revolutionaries getting help from the French.

[Khavos]

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...
No, I think it was in his right to ask for help. I won't pretend I'm up to snuff on my history, but I would imagine that if the Americans had turned around a couple of years after the Revolution and asked the King for some military help that some would question if it was a good idea to trust the King's armies on American soil. Maybe it would have been fine, and (given my knowledge of history) maybe there was an event that occured that compelled America to do just that. It seems like a bad idea, but I can't argue history with you because I don't know it very well.

I think you're spot on here.  In fact, fledgling America fought another war with England not long after the Revolution - 2, in fact.  So I don't think ANYONE would have really thought it was a good idea to ask England for help at that point.

However, it would still have been treason for those people to plot to overthrow the government if they DID ask for that help.

After all, it's always treason when you try to overthrow your ruling government - even if you win, in which case, you basically pardon yourself.

Here, in the end, Loghain didn't win, and can be punished for his treason.

It's important to remember that the American revolution is primarily viewed from a teleological perspective - it's viewed as good because the country established after the revolution was, in fact, a democracy and whatnot.  Had it ended up in a brutal military dictatorship somehow, nobody would think it was a particularly good idea.  It's judging the means based on how the end goes.  History is full of failed revolutions that no one remembers fondly, no matter the ideals espoused during them.  Even some successful ones - the French revolution comes to mind.  Decent basis for a revolution, absolutely terrible prosecution of one. 

If we apply the same standard to Loghain, he really doesn't have a great defense.  His whole motivation for taking power from Cailan was to protect Ferelden, which we all know would not have worked had he ultimately succeeded; Cailan may or may not have doomed Ferelden, but Loghain certainly would have. 

[FiliusMartis]

jln.francisco wrote...

Here, in the end, Loghain didn't win, and can be punished for his treason.

I don't mean to but into this conversation but, shouldn't the punishment be metted out according to what he deserves rather then what the law requires?

What he deserves is the crux of this debate. 

[Khavos]

jln.francisco wrote...

Here, in the end, Loghain didn't win, and can be punished for his treason.

I don't mean to but into this conversation but, shouldn't the punishment be metted out according to what he deserves rather then what the law requires?

What does he deserve?  He plotted to overthrow Cailan long before Ostagar.  He plotted to be able to quit the field if he so chose at Ostagar.  He took power after Ostagar.  Whatever his actual motivations were the second he pulled out of Ostagar, that sequence of undeniable facts would be enough to get him convicted of treason pretty much anywhere.  

[TJPags]

jln.francisco wrote...

Here, in the end, Loghain didn't win, and can be punished for his treason.

I don't mean to but into this conversation but, shouldn't the punishment be metted out according to what he deserves rather then what the law requires?

Please, butt in.  The more the merrier!!!

But - I'm not sure I understand you.  Traditionally, the punishment for treason is death - according to the law.  I'm of the opinion that the law sets punishment based on what's deserved.  So that's going to color my opinion here.

Now, as for what he deserves - for his crimes of treason (including allowing the king to die AND illegally siezing control of the nation under the guise of a false regency for a non-ruling monarch (Anora)), and his crime of attempted murder of Arl Eamon (or at least assault, so credit those accepting that he was never intended to die, although I disagree), his lies to the nation about how Caillan died and who was at fault, his defamation of the Grey Wardens, his essentially starting a civil war, his endorsement of slavery . . .what punishment would he deserve, exactly?

And also keep in mind something else - while we can discuss other punishments, the game only gives us two options - kill him, or let him be a Grey Warden, which can be seen as a kind of pardon, so long as he survives the Joining (which most people don't even know exists, after all).

[TJPags]

maxernst wrote...

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...
No, I think it was in his right to ask for help. I won't pretend I'm up to snuff on my history, but I would imagine that if the Americans had turned around a couple of years after the Revolution and asked the King for some military help that some would question if it was a good idea to trust the King's armies on American soil. Maybe it would have been fine, and (given my knowledge of history) maybe there was an event that occured that compelled America to do just that. It seems like a bad idea, but I can't argue history with you because I don't know it very well.

I think you're spot on here.  In fact, fledgling America fought another war with England not long after the Revolution - 2, in fact.  So I don't think ANYONE would have really thought it was a good idea to ask England for help at that point.

However, it would still have been treason for those people to plot to overthrow the government if they DID ask for that help.

After all, it's always treason when you try to overthrow your ruling government - even if you win, in which case, you basically pardon yourself.

Here, in the end, Loghain didn't win, and can be punished for his treason.

Didn't the Confederacy try to get Britsh help?  Maybe not actual military forces, though...American history isn't really my strong point either.  Of course, since they were fighting the Union, it's perhaps more akin to the Revolutionaries getting help from the French.

Not to make this about American history, but yes, they did.  Then again, they were revolting - or attempting to secede, if you prefer - against THEIR rightful government.  Also, traditionally, the South was more England friendly anyway.

Perhaps Caillan was southern? 

[TJPags]

jln.francisco wrote...

But - I'm not sure I understand you. Traditionally, the punishment for treason is death - according to the law. I'm of the opinion that the law sets punishment based on what's deserved. So that's going to color my opinion here.

While I agree Loghain does indeed deserve to die, I don't agree the law (especially in a medieval setting) sets the ;punishment based on what is deserved. It's usually a mixture of that society's values/moral system whcih can be horribly skewed one way or the other. Loghain deserves to die for his (for the lack of a better word) crimes, not for breaking the law.

Wait, now you're losing me, or I'm losing myself.

He deserves to die for his crimes.  But aren't his crimes only crimes because they broke the law?  Or are you making a distinction between law and morality?  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I'm not sure I get your distinction unless viewed as law v morality?

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...
No, I think it was in his right to ask for help. I won't pretend I'm up to snuff on my history, but I would imagine that if the Americans had turned around a couple of years after the Revolution and asked the King for some military help that some would question if it was a good idea to trust the King's armies on American soil. Maybe it would have been fine, and (given my knowledge of history) maybe there was an event that occured that compelled America to do just that. It seems like a bad idea, but I can't argue history with you because I don't know it very well.

I think you're spot on here.  In fact, fledgling America fought another war with England not long after the Revolution - 2, in fact.  So I don't think ANYONE would have really thought it was a good idea to ask England for help at that point.

However, it would still have been treason for those people to plot to overthrow the government if they DID ask for that help.

Yes, technically that would have been treason, as much as the Revolution was technically treason in the first place. However, if your choices are 1) treason or 2) potentially undoing the efforts of your Revolution, I'm inclined to side with the traitors who want to maintain their independence.

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...
No, I think it was in his right to ask for help. I won't pretend I'm up to snuff on my history, but I would imagine that if the Americans had turned around a couple of years after the Revolution and asked the King for some military help that some would question if it was a good idea to trust the King's armies on American soil. Maybe it would have been fine, and (given my knowledge of history) maybe there was an event that occured that compelled America to do just that. It seems like a bad idea, but I can't argue history with you because I don't know it very well.

I think you're spot on here.  In fact, fledgling America fought another war with England not long after the Revolution - 2, in fact.  So I don't think ANYONE would have really thought it was a good idea to ask England for help at that point.

However, it would still have been treason for those people to plot to overthrow the government if they DID ask for that help.

Yes, technically that would have been treason, as much as the Revolution was technically treason in the first place. However, if your choices are 1) treason or 2) potentially undoing the efforts of your Revolution, I'm inclined to side with the traitors who want to maintain their independence.

Hmmmm.

Now THIS gives me pause and makes me think.

This might be the first atriculation of a reason why Loghain's actions can be viewed as justified.  IMO, of course.

Great - now I have to actually THINK. 

[Khavos]

phaonica wrote...

Yes, technically that would have been treason, as much as the Revolution was technically treason in the first place. However, if your choices are 1) treason or 2) potentially undoing the efforts of your Revolution, I'm inclined to side with the traitors who want to maintain their independence.

Potential isn't reality.  It's just potential.  A buddy and I got in a fight in a bar once.  We potentially could've been killed, the other guys were damn big dudes.  Should we have grabbed knives and stabbed them to death because they potentially could've killed us?

[Khavos]

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...
No, I think it was in his right to ask for help. I won't pretend I'm up to snuff on my history, but I would imagine that if the Americans had turned around a couple of years after the Revolution and asked the King for some military help that some would question if it was a good idea to trust the King's armies on American soil. Maybe it would have been fine, and (given my knowledge of history) maybe there was an event that occured that compelled America to do just that. It seems like a bad idea, but I can't argue history with you because I don't know it very well.

I think you're spot on here.  In fact, fledgling America fought another war with England not long after the Revolution - 2, in fact.  So I don't think ANYONE would have really thought it was a good idea to ask England for help at that point.

However, it would still have been treason for those people to plot to overthrow the government if they DID ask for that help.

Yes, technically that would have been treason, as much as the Revolution was technically treason in the first place. However, if your choices are 1) treason or 2) potentially undoing the efforts of your Revolution, I'm inclined to side with the traitors who want to maintain their independence.

Hmmmm.

Now THIS gives me pause and makes me think.

This might be the first atriculation of a reason why Loghain's actions can be viewed as justified.  IMO, of course.

Great - now I have to actually THINK. 

Only if you view Loghain's actions in a vacuum. 

[Monica21]

Khavos wrote...
No, Loghain was certainly planning a coup.  Gaider pointed out that Eamon was moved out of the way, that the alliance with Howe was made, etc., long before Ostagar.  The coup wasn't necessarily going to happen at Ostagar, but it was coming.

He was going to move against Cailan.  That much is clear, and I'm not really sure why it's being argued at this point, as we do have "Word of God" confirmation on it.  

Furthermore, if he was transitioning rule to Anora, he wouldn't have declared himself regent.  That sort of takes her out of the picture as far as ruling goes. 

No, Loghain is not planning a coup. And I'm at least arguing it because Gaider never said "Loghain planned a coup." What he did say was "Loghain made plans to get out of Ostagar alive should the worst happen." Considering how ridiculous I thought Cailan during the five minutes of dialogue I had with him, I'd have thought something similar. I would also have thought "this king is going to be the death of us all so I better have my ducks in a row before that happens." Cailan's insistence on being on the front lines is what got him killed, not Loghain's strategy.

When did Gaider say that Loghain made an alliance with Howe before Ostagar? If so, that's recent and contradicts previous statements. He has said that Howe attached himself to Loghain after Ostagar and Loghain let himself be influenced by Howe, but never that they were more than barely acquainted before Ostagar.

Declaring himself regent is not declaring himself king. He has no intention of becoming king and even tells you that when you meet him in Denerim. A regent rules in the absence of someone on the throne, and that's all. It doesn't take Anora out of the game at all. He's preserving the throne for her until the nobles can agree at a Landsmeet.

[Dean_the_Young]

TJPags wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Orlais is an actual, tangible threat. Simply because it doesn't materialize doesn't mean it isn't real: that's the nature of most threats and dangers in the world, actually.

Umm, how are they a threat?

They were coming because THEY WERE INVITED BY THE KING OF FERELDEN!!!! 

I want you to reread this line.
I want you to think back on all of history you have ever known, and then delve into literature as well, and think of all the infallible wise kings you have ever heard about.
I want you to reflect on the general evaluation of Cailen by everyone who knew him personally and everyone who worked with him. Specifically, the evaluation of his skills, competence, and rational mind.

Now, having done all that, I want you to restate why, simply because Cailen (who doesn't even run his own kingdom) invited the Orlesians into Ferelden, that automatically became a wise decision and had no danger of Orlesian opportunism.

This was no invasion, being done on their own - they were asked for assistance, and gave it.

Loghain doesn't like that - and what follows is his actions at Ostagar, with Eamon, and thereafter, all to stop something his legitimate king legally did.

And even if they WERE meant as an invasion - they never invaded. 

If you need the nature of a threat explained to you, you aren't a person likely to recognize one. Whether a threat is carried out or not is irrelevant to whether it exists: the fact alone that a threat exists is the cause to act to prevent it. This is the very foundation of risk management.

Consider the case of buckling up in your car. You do not buckle up after you have a car wreck: the event of concern has already occured. And you do not only buckle up for the car rides that will turn into wrecks: foreknowledge of future events is, by it's nature, shakey at best. You take the intended course of action every time, because there is no foresight device that tells us 'you will only have a crash if you do this or that.'

The nature of the Orlesian threat is much like that. Whether the Orlesians will take the opportunity to invade/subdue/occupy Ferelden, as they have with other countries in need of aid against a Blight, is, by it's nature, unknowable to those not in the know before it happens. But to say there is no threat of Orlesian opportunism because Cailen might abide by it is to confess ignorance of Orlesian history itself.

Now, on another hand, if your point is supposed to be that Cailen has the right to do whatever he wants in making Ferelden policy simply because he is a King who doesn't even hold true power... **** Monarchy, and doubly so the ruler starts to make a mistake. Kings are only arbitrary power-holders anyway: Loghain and Maric both fought against a sovereign King who held more de facto power over Ferelden they they did. Being King is not an excuse or a justification to mandate others follow your mistakes.
r

I'm not exactly trespassing on your property if I stand just on the
other side of the property line, am I?  Nope, I'm not - just like there
was never any Orlesian invasion, nor even the threat of one.

You are obviously very unfamiliar with provocations and threats if you see no grounds to be worried about that. Even children understand the obvious provocation of the 'I'm not touching you' maneuver.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 13 août 2010 - 03:04 .

[TJPags]

jln.francisco wrote...

But aren't his crimes only crimes because they broke the law? Or are you making a distinction between law and morality?

The law is a set of rules decided on by the ruling class. It is informed and shaped around their needs, wants and values. It isn't any realiable indicator for what's 'right' or 'wrong.' It's just a system in place that keeps the wheels turning without to much fuss for the people calling the shots. Some forms of gov't try to limit this by trying to map out what's acceptable and what isn;'t and limiting the power of said ruling class. But the law will always be the rsult of who ever is writing it set of biases, prejudices and values.

That's why the morality of a situation should be decided upon in a case by case basis. Individuals don't have the obligations that courts or governments do so they are free to actually weigh someone's wrong doing and decide on an appropriate punishment. This may be vigilantism (which has it's own set of problems and issues) but it the situation with Loghain and why I think you shouldn't kill him because the law says traitors must die.

You should kill him for the suffering he cause, the people he allowed to die and the nation he almost let be swallowed whole.

Ahhh, I think I get you.

What he did was wrong, regardless of whether there was a law against it, and therefore, he should be punished for that, not for breaking some written law.

In that light, yes, I agree with you - although some laws (those against murder, for example) are made laws simply BECAUSE the act is wrong, not just to keep things easy for the ruling class.

[TJPags]

Khavos wrote...

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...
No, I think it was in his right to ask for help. I won't pretend I'm up to snuff on my history, but I would imagine that if the Americans had turned around a couple of years after the Revolution and asked the King for some military help that some would question if it was a good idea to trust the King's armies on American soil. Maybe it would have been fine, and (given my knowledge of history) maybe there was an event that occured that compelled America to do just that. It seems like a bad idea, but I can't argue history with you because I don't know it very well.

I think you're spot on here.  In fact, fledgling America fought another war with England not long after the Revolution - 2, in fact.  So I don't think ANYONE would have really thought it was a good idea to ask England for help at that point.

However, it would still have been treason for those people to plot to overthrow the government if they DID ask for that help.

Yes, technically that would have been treason, as much as the Revolution was technically treason in the first place. However, if your choices are 1) treason or 2) potentially undoing the efforts of your Revolution, I'm inclined to side with the traitors who want to maintain their independence.

Hmmmm.

Now THIS gives me pause and makes me think.

This might be the first atriculation of a reason why Loghain's actions can be viewed as justified.  IMO, of course.

Great - now I have to actually THINK. 

Only if you view Loghain's actions in a vacuum. 

I'm not sure.  I'm actually giving this thought.

I'm thinking - if I thought my government was selling itself and it's people to our greatest enemy, how would I react?  What would I do?  Would I do what Loghain did, or some of it, or do something completely different?

When I come up with that answer, I'll be back to let you all know.

[phaonica]

Khavos wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Yes, technically that would have been treason, as much as the Revolution was technically treason in the first place. However, if your choices are 1) treason or 2) potentially undoing the efforts of your Revolution, I'm inclined to side with the traitors who want to maintain their independence.

Potential isn't reality.  It's just potential.  A buddy and I got in a fight in a bar once.  We potentially could've been killed, the other guys were damn big dudes.  Should we have grabbed knives and stabbed them to death because they potentially could've killed us?

I think potential is too an aspect of reality. If you get drunk and drive your car around, you have the potential to wreck the car and hurt yourself or someone else. Does that mean the potential is not real?

[Khavos]

phaonica wrote...

Khavos wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Yes, technically that would have been treason, as much as the Revolution was technically treason in the first place. However, if your choices are 1) treason or 2) potentially undoing the efforts of your Revolution, I'm inclined to side with the traitors who want to maintain their independence.

Potential isn't reality.  It's just potential.  A buddy and I got in a fight in a bar once.  We potentially could've been killed, the other guys were damn big dudes.  Should we have grabbed knives and stabbed them to death because they potentially could've killed us?

I think potential is too an aspect of reality. If you get drunk and drive your car around, you have the potential to wreck the car and hurt yourself or someone else. Does that mean the potential is not real?

Having the potential to do something doesn't mean that I will do it.  You have the potential to randomly start murdering people - should we arrest you now? 

[TJPags]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Orlais is an actual, tangible threat. Simply because it doesn't materialize doesn't mean it isn't real: that's the nature of most threats and dangers in the world, actually.

Umm, how are they a threat?

They were coming because THEY WERE INVITED BY THE KING OF FERELDEN!!!! 

I want you to reread this line.
I want you to think back on all of history you have ever known, and then delve into literature as well, and think of all the infallible wise kings you have ever heard about.
I want you to reflect on the general evaluation of Cailen by everyone who knew him personally and everyone who worked with him. Specifically, the evaluation of his skills, competence, and rational mind.

Now, having done all that, I want you to restate why, simply because Cailen (who doesn't even run his own kingdom) invited the Orlesians into Ferelden, that automatically became a wise decision and had no danger of Orlesian opportunism.

I've never said Caillan wasn't an idiot - he is.  He is NOT the guy to be running anything, not even a lemonade stand.

But he is the King.  Going against his wishes IS treason.

This was no invasion, being done on their own - they were asked for assistance, and gave it.

Loghain doesn't like that - and what follows is his actions at Ostagar, with Eamon, and thereafter, all to stop something his legitimate king legally did.

And even if they WERE meant as an invasion - they never invaded. 

If you need the nature of a threat explained to you, you aren't a person likely to recognize one. Whether a threat is carried out or not is irrelevant to whether it exists: the fact alone that a threat exists is the cause to act to prevent it. This is the very foundation of risk management.

Consider the case of buckling up in your car. You do not buckle up after you have a car wreck: the event of concern has already occured. And you do not only buckle up for the car rides that will turn into wrecks: foreknowledge of future events is, by it's nature, shakey at best. You take the intended course of action every time, because there is no foresight device that tells us 'you will only have a crash if you do this or that.'

The nature of the Orlesian threat is much like that. Whether the Orlesians will take the opportunity to invade/subdue/occupy Ferelden, as they have with other countries in need of aid against a Blight, is, by it's nature, unknowable to those not in the know before it happens. But to say there is no threat of Orlesian opportunism is to confess ignorance of Orlesian history itself.

Oh, I understand the nature of a threat.  And I agree an Orlesian invasion is ALWAYS a threat for Ferelden.  What I'm saying is, the threat was NOT greater here.  The Orlesians only did what they were asked to do by the King - even though the King was an idiot, that's not their fault, it's Fereldens.  Nothing they did raised the threat level from what it always was, and THAT'S why I question Loghains fixation on it.

You buckle up to guard against the threat of accident, sure - but if it's icy, increasing the risk of accident, you drive slower, no?  Or do you ALWAYS drive slow, just because sometimes it might be icy?

If there was an increased threat level - if Orlais moved troops WITHOUT invitation, or if they continued afte being asked to stop, these would increase the threat level - then you can consider that.  But the actual threat was no worse then it usually is.

I'm not exactly trespassing on your property if I stand just on the
other side of the property line, am I?  Nope, I'm not - just like there
was never any Orlesian invasion, nor even the threat of one.

You are obviously very unfamiliar with provocations and threats if you see no grounds to be worried about that. Even children understand the obvious provocation of the 'I'm not touching you' maneuver.

Again, I'm very familiar with provocation and threats - and I realize there is a difference between the two.

"I'm not touching you" is provocation.  "I am going to punch you in the face" is a threat.

Standing on the border of your property is provocation.  Telling you I'm going to come onto your property is a threat.

Provocation does not always allow for retaliation.  Threats can sometimes - but not always - justify them.