1092 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

TJPags wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TJPags wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

Agree with what's in here, except for the part about him being a tragic figure. I see nothing tragic in this, given that we're assuming he's annoyed at Caillan, feels he's expendable, and convinces himself that the battle can't be won.

A tragic hero is defined by his poor judgement (or lapse in judgement) where everything else he does 'good' or 'pure.' Just because someone is a tragic hero does not make them immune to criticism or make them ultimately 'good.' You could make the case for Jowan being a tragic hero, if on a much less epic scale then Loghain.

But nothing else Loghain does in game is 'good' or 'pure'.  He may have been so in the books, but in game?  Nope.

The basis of this claim being...?

Good ain't nice, and purity has nothing to do with either.

Tell me one good, pure thing he does, please.

Making himself regent?  Allowing Howe to lock up and kill nobles?  Selling people into slavery?  Fighting a civil war rather than let the nobles choose a new leader?  Poisoning Eamon?  Hiring assasins?  Lying about the Grey Wardens?

Which of those was good and pure?  Or did I miss one?

Since you've already taken a subjective position of what 'good' is, you've put yourself in a corner. When good is a matter of position (poisoning Eamon was intended to help avoid a civil war, after all: Eamon was never intended to die), you're not proving anything but your own subjectivity. And, while your position is a good thing to know, it is hardly universal or absolute.

I could, after all, make a point about the elven slave ring: how the money to fund armies is an undeniable necessity, and that no warden or ruler ever rejects Ferelden treasury holding the money already earned or the arms already purchased with it. It was certainly good enough for them to use. And the Landsmeet is certainly no guarantee of providing a good leader: they chose Cailen, after all. Loghain putting his evaluations (of himself, of others) above others is no different than when the Warden does it with companions' concerns. (Or, more closely, putting themselves on the throne as a Human Noble).

Howe is a messy ally, true, but the Warden makes messy allies as well, and I doubt you saw it as evil. Either Dwarf King is corrupt with an army of fanatics. The golems are a question of a higher order, even of dwarven survival. The Dalish/Werewolf question, is a choice between massacre and murder of cursed spirit.  The Mage Tower is balancing the future safety of Ferelden from hidden abominations/maleficars to ensuring the fade is defeated.


'Good' and 'evil' are not moral absolutes, unchanging attributes given to certain actions without context. They are a matter of context and intent: Loghain did not sell elves into slavery for greed or personal gain, but because they (the Alienage) would die regardless and the war chests needed more gold to save all of Ferelden. Loghain looked to who would lead, and did not think them worthy or capable: at the same time, even Eamon admits he has never known Loghain to ever desire power personally, and little suggests this has changed. It was a personal judgement.

You ask what was good and evil, and I tell you: consider what Loghain's concerns and priorities, not your own, were.

[Sarah1281]

And we don't know those are Loghains men . . .and invaders don't stop because you ask them nicely.

Maybe they are stopped by the forces and don't feel they can force their way into the country or that it would be worth it to invade at that point since Ferelden is evidently determined to destroy itself. Maybe they weren't actually trying to invade. Loghain doesn't have to be RIGHT about Orlais invading for it to be a valid fear handled in a irrational manner.

[TJPags]

jln.francisco wrote...

TJPags wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

When did he try to get the Mages to help? (in game, please) because I don't remember that.

With Uldred. He promises to free the Circle if the mages aid him in his regency.

Really?  When does this take place?

Wynne mentions it. There is a meeting just before the abomination break out in the Tower where Uldred tries to persuade the mages to his side. Wynne and some of the other mages at Ostagar bring up how Loghain abandoned the king and the mages refuse (if I remember right) to have anything to do with Uldred or Loghain. 

But wait now.

It's been REPEATEDLY argued by pro-loghain people that the deal with Uldred was in place before the battle at Ostagar - thus, why Loghain wanted Uldred in the Tower with the Beacon.

So come on - can this count as getting the Circle to try to help him stop the blight????

[Sarah1281]

But wait now.



It's been REPEATEDLY argued by pro-loghain people that the deal with Uldred was in place before the battle at Ostagar - thus, why Loghain wanted Uldred in the Tower with the Beacon.



So come on - can this count as getting the Circle to try to help him stop the blight????

Um, yeah. What do you think he needed mages in the army FOR?

[TJPags]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TJPags wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

Agree with what's in here, except for the part about him being a tragic figure. I see nothing tragic in this, given that we're assuming he's annoyed at Caillan, feels he's expendable, and convinces himself that the battle can't be won.

A tragic hero is defined by his poor judgement (or lapse in judgement) where everything else he does 'good' or 'pure.' Just because someone is a tragic hero does not make them immune to criticism or make them ultimately 'good.' You could make the case for Jowan being a tragic hero, if on a much less epic scale then Loghain.

But nothing else Loghain does in game is 'good' or 'pure'.  He may have been so in the books, but in game?  Nope.

The basis of this claim being...?

Good ain't nice, and purity has nothing to do with either.

Tell me one good, pure thing he does, please.

Making himself regent?  Allowing Howe to lock up and kill nobles?  Selling people into slavery?  Fighting a civil war rather than let the nobles choose a new leader?  Poisoning Eamon?  Hiring assasins?  Lying about the Grey Wardens?

Which of those was good and pure?  Or did I miss one?

Since you've already taken a subjective position of what 'good' is, you've put yourself in a corner. When good is a matter of position (poisoning Eamon was intended to help avoid a civil war, after all: Eamon was never intended to die), you're not proving anything but your own subjectivity. And, while your position is a good thing to know, it is hardly universal or absolute.

I could, after all, make a point about the elven slave ring: how the money to fund armies is an undeniable necessity, and that no warden or ruler ever rejects Ferelden treasury holding the money already earned or the arms already purchased with it. It was certainly good enough for them to use. And the Landsmeet is certainly no guarantee of providing a good leader: they chose Cailen, after all. Loghain putting his evaluations (of himself, of others) above others is no different than when the Warden does it with companions' concerns. (Or, more closely, putting themselves on the throne as a Human Noble).

Howe is a messy ally, true, but the Warden makes messy allies as well, and I doubt you saw it as evil. Either Dwarf King is corrupt with an army of fanatics. The golems are a question of a higher order, even of dwarven survival. The Dalish/Werewolf question, is a choice between massacre and murder of cursed spirit.  The Mage Tower is balancing the future safety of Ferelden from hidden abominations/maleficars to ensuring the fade is defeated.


'Good' and 'evil' are not moral absolutes, unchanging attributes given to certain actions without context. They are a matter of context and intent: Loghain did not sell elves into slavery for greed or personal gain, but because they (the Alienage) would die regardless and the war chests needed more gold to save all of Ferelden. Loghain looked to who would lead, and did not think them worthy or capable: at the same time, even Eamon admits he has never known Loghain to ever desire power personally, and little suggests this has changed. It was a personal judgement.

You ask what was good and evil, and I tell you: consider what Loghain's concerns and priorities, not your own, were.

Good and evil are absolutely subjective . . . so how can we decide whether ANYTHING he did is good?

If we can't, then he can't be a tragic figure who did good things except for one mistake, can he, except by personal opinion.

Loghains concerns are, frankly, paranoid, psychotic, and unfounded.  His only concern is stopping the Orlesians, who never did anything during the game except come when called and sit quietly at the border when asked to stop.

I can accept that people feel for him because of his background, learned in the books.  But please, for once, will you people supporting him just admit that the game makes him the villain?

[TJPags]

jln.francisco wrote...

Yay, moral relativism. I'll quietly make my exit...

btw, TJ, be careful with tu quoques. Stick to the claim itself.

Good point. 

Making a backroom deal BEFORE you're in power to have someone support you once you're IN power (the deal, of course, including that person HELPING you get into power through a morally questionable act) qualifies as a good thing you did AFTER you took power.

Yea, you know what?  I quit.

[Sarah1281]

I can accept that people feel for him because of his background, learned in the books. But please, for once, will you people supporting him just admit that the game makes him the villain?

We ARE admitting he's the antagonist. Antagonist=/= pure evil. It does not always equal deserving of death. He has made some bad choices and isn't always right. We all acknowledge that.

[Dean_the_Young]

jln.francisco wrote...

After the battle is met, however, there is no backing out. What the best (or least worst) course there is what the field looks to be. And the darkspawn surge through the tower, the unexpected size of the hoard, the change in the situation itself, changes the values. Fighting to Cailan is not a promise of victory and preserving the forces of Ferelden in the face of the Darkspawn and Orlais: it's the route to lose the ability to face either, regardless of whether Cailan survived or not. This is a judgement call that Loghain, as general appointed by the king, is responsible for making. And so at this point, cutting losses is the less disastrous choice.

And how would Loghain know all this? I am genuinely curious. From his position he sees the exposed rear of the darkspawn, nothing more. How would he be able to judge the effectiveness of his rush or how well Cailan's lines were doing?

From various sources, as all generals have had to make do with: what he personally can see, what others
see and then tell him (runners, scouts), what he can infer (the unexpected size of
the hoard, the lateness of the signal). The last one alone would be damning even in my judgement: knowing not only that there's a larger than planned for force between the two armies, knowing not only that the far force has been forced to resist through this larger-than-planned force, but also that it has already had to do so far longer than we intended it to? Everyone already knew that Cailan's force was too small to be anything other than a diversion and hope that Loghain would come to it's relief before it was broken. I'd personally already expect it to have broken by the time the Tower finally was lit (which isn't that far from what actually did occur), let alone be there by the time I (might) have fought through.

An army is a tool like a lever, but like any other lever if you try to lift something far too heavy far too long, it's likely to already be broke by the time you can get there.



*Darkspawn aren't even the sort of thing you can flank in the conventional sense. A large part of the effectiveness from flanking comes from throwing orderly enemy formations into disarray: darkspawn never have these formations in the first place. This isn't to say it isn't better to flank than not, but it isn't as decisive as with organized armies.

If it is a question of numbers, I'm told he;s been up against similar or worse with a not so good position so why would this be any different? Or is simply a question of potential loss vs gain? Before he had nothing to lose and now he has his army and chance to keep Orlais out.

The difference between a victory against all odds in a forced battle and risk of choice in a battle with not guarantee of a livable victory? Yes, potential risk alone would be massive. I would never count on being lucky in the future simply because I was lucky in the past. Such attitudes do not win for long.

You named half the equation yourself. If Loghain breaks his army rescuing Cailan from the collapse of Cailan's army (and, given the implied larger size of the hoarde, expecting both armies to be decimated multiple times over is the optimistic route), then whether Cailan actually survives or not there is no surviving Ferelden Army to resist the darkspawn or Orlais. If he doesn't, however, at least one army survives to fight both threats again another day.

This alone is a valid justification, at least to me. Militaries can't live if they throw good troops after bad, and there is such a thing as unacceptable losses. A fool King is not reason enough to do so.

What also may have propped up, and what I feel far to many people fixate on, is the question of what else could have happened. If Loghain had fought through, barely had a scrap of army left between the two... and Cailan was alive? What would Cailan do... and where would he turn to? The Empress of Orlais seems obvious.

This, I think, might have been the worst of it, and this is the idea that most people cling to as if it's the only reason anyone would ever leave Cailan. But, as I said, I feel there are other reasons more than strong enough to justify Loghain's actions, even if the prospect did join the chorus.

[Dean_the_Young]

TJPags wrote...

Good and evil are absolutely subjective . . . so how can we decide whether ANYTHING he did is good?

By empathy, which isn't to be confused with sympathy but rather shared insight. Good and evil are subjective in action, but not in evaluation: we can look at why he did something as well as what he did. That's how these things normally go in the first place.

If we can't, then he can't be a tragic figure who did good things except for one mistake, can he, except by personal opinion.

He can be both.

Loghains concerns are, frankly, paranoid, psychotic, and unfounded.  His only concern is stopping the Orlesians, who never did anything during the game except come when called and sit quietly at the border when asked to stop.

Unless you intend to argue that prior history is irrelevant for founding concerns, I'm going to chalk this up for silly hyperbole. It's very rare in history that something is only a concern solely because of immediate action. It would be like dismissing the threat of another blight as soon as the ArchDemon's dead because, hey, there isn't another Blight gathering right in the epilogue.

I can accept that people feel for him because of his background, learned in the books.  But please, for once, will you people supporting him just admit that the game makes him the villain?

Who denies he's an antagonist? 

[Dean_the_Young]

jln.francisco wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

@Dean I just wanted to point out that the situation you see as my alternative leading to, is exactly the sitaution Fereldan is in because of Loghain's decision. The south is wiped out by the darkspawn, a civil war is brewing amongst the banorn and the darkspawn horde is perfectly intact. the only difference is, everyone has their soldiers and there are at least a score of wardens left living to go and recruit the Dalish, Dwarves and Mages (as Duncan intended to do judging from the mission he gives you in the Kocari Wilds.)

And it's a completely laughable scenario because it relies on Tyrn Loghain throwing a hissy fit and acting the part of a petulant child, opening the entire country of Ferelden (you know, that place he would do anything for) to a risk that could have been because Cailan refuses to be safer in battle.

All this, mind you, because it would mark Loghain as sincere about concern for Cailan's health. Completely ignorring that doing so makes him put one man above the country, something antithetical to the very core of his character.

And you still do not see what's unreasonable about this?

I provided a situation where Loghain could have walked away with Cailan and neither been any worse off then if Loghain had continued with his plans. It's not a perfect solution, or a good one or even a passable one really but it's a solution and it's one that Loghain felt was beneath his already decided upon course of action.

Here's another solution: you just agree with me now.

See how silly that was? If a solution isn't plausible, realistic, or achievable, it isn't a valid solution. It is, at best, a poorly thought though scenario.

Loghain would be off worse: the Darkspawn are unchallenged, there's a Civil War with Cailan, and Orlais is primed to intervene in Ferelden at the King's own behest. And these are things to be expected from quiting the field before Ostagar in such a manner, while going through with Ostagar promised none of these things.

These are not things he wanted/expected by just going through the battle. You can make as many scenarios as you wish where things can be analogically similar, but if it requires people to make worse evaluations to reach those same worst-case results, it isn't worth anything.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 19 août 2010 - 02:46 .

[Dean_the_Young]

jln.francisco wrote...

From various sources, as all generals have had to make do with: what he personally can see, what others see and then tell him (runners, scouts), what he can infer (the unexpected size of
the hoard, the lateness of the signal).

But Loghain doesn't have any runners or scouts. He has the beacon and that's it. All the scouts have returned to camp and have worked themselves back into the individual armies they came from. The information you describe sounds like real time and there's simply no way Loghain had anything remotely like that. Sure he might have guessed the Tower had been lost but the fact the beacon was lit would mean it had been reclaimed. Besides, why would the darkspawn have even bothered with the tower if their numbers were great enough to resist Loghain's charge? They even send an Ogre to secure the beacon itself. Seems a huge waste of resources if they have the man power to withstand Loghain's charge.

Of course Loghin has runners and scouts in his army. An army can't function without runners to deliver the general's messages to various things, and scouts are integrated parts of any army. A competent general would not have them any more than you would go outside without pants.

No, the information wouldn't be real time. That's impossible with their level of technology.

That the tower has been reclaimed does not mean that the battle is going well: the fact that it was lost in the first plain is a very worrying sign. The darkspawn incursion into the tower isn't a sign that they don't have the hoarde-strength to fight straight up: it's a sign that they have so much that they're running through every breach possible despite the channeling-effect of the valley. They have so much that sending a little bit through the tower base isn't hurting their ability to fight elsewhere.

And if the horde is larger then he expected, would it really make that big a difference to a force attacking from the enemy's rear? The darkspawn are not only facing the wrong direction, they're not even in any kind of formation. If they did realize they were being attacked from the rear, just getting out the order in time for them to turn around and get into a defensive position would be impossible given how disorganized darkspawn hordes are.

The lack of order favors the Darkspawn somewhat in the sense it isn't as big a negative: they're never in any sort of real major formation in the first place, so whether they're not in any formation going forward or turning around doesn't effect them so much. They are an inherently chaotic force in the first place. No one is saying they wouldn't be torn through and die in great cart load lots, but they're ability to cause damage to Loghain's army isn't going to vanish in confusion the way a human foe might.

[Dean_the_Young]

jln.francisco wrote...

Loghain would be off worse: the Darkspawn are unchallenged, there's a Civil War with Cailan, and Orlais is primed to intervene in Ferelden at the King's own behest. And these are things to be expected from quiting the field before Ostagar in such a manner, while going through with Ostagar promised none of these things.

The darkspawn were unchallenged. Even the Bann at Lothering takes his men northward. There's no one left defending the south except for militias and townspeople. It's why so many of the northern cities are being flooded with refugees.

Except the loss of Ostagar as a whole wasn't  seen as a probable possibility (or else they really would have waited for more forces, rather than dismiss Eamon's men as a safety cushion, whereas the walking out of Ostagar beforehand would have made it fait accompli. One is a deliberate choice ('I leave now, and doom the South accordingly'), while the other was an undesirable outcome of a lost battle that could have been won and prevented the disaster ('the battle has turned against us, the South is doomed regardless.')


Two options that lead to the same bad point aren't equivalent and equally likely if one does it on purpose and the other finds it forced there by bad chance.

Here's another solution: you just agree with me now.

Two different situations with very different things at stake.

But the same sort of petulant silliness and illogical decision making.

[Tirigon]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Also the warden in some cases are criminals:
DN, can possibly commit fratricide, and kill off the heir apparent
CE, kills over a dozen guardsmen, and noblemen in an attack.
DC: Is a former carta thug, who broke most dwarven laws at one time or another.
Mage: Losed an blood mage, possibly.

Wrong, my friend.

DN is a criminal in our view (possibly, not necessary), but for dwarfes what he does is OK.

CE kills rapists. All of them deserve death, and the only thing you can blame him / her for is that their deaths are way too painless. They should have suffered more.

DC is forced to work for a bastard because dwarfen societies doesn´t allow casteless to be anything but criminals and prostitutes, so it´s society who´s to blame, not your char.

Mage helps a friend to escape certain tranquility / death. That´s not a crime. The law that prohibits bloodmagic is the crime.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Also the warden in some cases are criminals:
DN, can possibly commit fratricide, and kill off the heir apparent
CE, kills over a dozen guardsmen, and noblemen in an attack.
DC: Is a former carta thug, who broke most dwarven laws at one time or another.
Mage: Losed an blood mage, possibly.

Wrong, my friend.

DN is a criminal in our view (possibly, not necessary), but for dwarfes what he does is OK.

?

Uh, no. It is not OK for the dwarves, hence your exile in the first place.

CE kills rapists. All of them deserve death, and the only thing you can blame him / her for is that their deaths are way too painless. They should have suffered more.

This actually is putting personal views before the law.

Vaughn and his fellow rapists (not all the men you can kill are involved) are criminals, but you, the CE, are not a person charged with carrying out the law. No trial, no judge, not even an accusation: Vaughn dies innocent before the eyes of the law if you kill him then, and the vigilante city-elf remains a murderer.

DC is forced to work for a bastard because dwarfen societies doesn´t allow casteless to be anything but criminals and prostitutes, so it´s society who´s to blame, not your char.

Being forced to break the law doesn't mean you didn't break the law. DC is a criminal, and whether he/she would like to not be one is irrelevant.

Mage helps a friend to escape certain tranquility / death. That´s not a crime. The law that prohibits bloodmagic is the crime.

Nope. The law is what the law is, not what you feel it should be.

[Giggles_Manically]

Tirigon wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Also the warden in some cases are criminals:
DN, can possibly commit fratricide, and kill off the heir apparent
CE, kills over a dozen guardsmen, and noblemen in an attack.
DC: Is a former carta thug, who broke most dwarven laws at one time or another.
Mage: Losed an blood mage, possibly.

Wrong, my friend.

DN is a criminal in our view (possibly, not necessary), but for dwarfes what he does is OK.

CE kills rapists. All of them deserve death, and the only thing you can blame him / her for is that their deaths are way too painless. They should have suffered more.

DC is forced to work for a bastard because dwarfen societies doesn´t allow casteless to be anything but criminals and prostitutes, so it´s society who´s to blame, not your char.

Mage helps a friend to escape certain tranquility / death. That´s not a crime. The law that prohibits bloodmagic is the crime.

What you stated are all still illegal, since:
The DN is either framed, or a literal kin slayer.
The DC breaks the majority of dwarven laws in one day, and is a CARTA THUG.

Also while i stand by killing Vaughan, the CE is still a criminal since he/she killed a noble man who hadent broken any Fereldan laws.

There is a giant difference between doing something right, and following the law, and the majority of the origins actually make the PC break an existing law.

[Dean_the_Young]

Vaughan was a criminal, hence why he was hiding his crimes. But most organized societies recognize killing criminals without trial a crime, and as an unaccused noble Vaughan wouldn't (yet) have been considered one.



Killing all the uninvolved off-duty guards, if you do that, is also pretty bad.

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Also the warden in some cases are criminals:
DN, can possibly commit fratricide, and kill off the heir apparent
CE, kills over a dozen guardsmen, and noblemen in an attack.
DC: Is a former carta thug, who broke most dwarven laws at one time or another.
Mage: Losed an blood mage, possibly.

Wrong, my friend.

DN is a criminal in our view (possibly, not necessary), but for dwarfes what he does is OK.

CE kills rapists. All of them deserve death, and the only thing you can blame him / her for is that their deaths are way too painless. They should have suffered more.

DC is forced to work for a bastard because dwarfen societies doesn´t allow casteless to be anything but criminals and prostitutes, so it´s society who´s to blame, not your char.

Mage helps a friend to escape certain tranquility / death. That´s not a crime. The law that prohibits bloodmagic is the crime.

Seriously? No one's saying that the Warden has to be a horrible person for doing this. Being a criminal does not make you, by default, a horrible person. Breaking the law makes you a criminal. Being caught killing your brother, slaughtering your way through a nobleman's house, imperonsonating a member of a higher caste (your official DC crime you're to be killed for), and aiding a blood mage ARE crimes. They may or may not make you a horrible person - particularly in the first case - but they are still illegal so doing them still makes you a criminal.

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

CE kills rapists. All of them deserve death, and the only thing you can blame him / her for is that their deaths are way too painless. They should have suffered more.

This actually is putting personal views before the law.

Vaughn and his fellow rapists (not all the men you can kill are involved) are criminals, but you, the CE, are not a person charged with carrying out the law. No trial, no judge, not even an accusation: Vaughn dies innocent before the eyes of the law if you kill him then, and the vigilante city-elf remains a murderer.

That only means the Law is wrong. Everyone has a right to fight for justice and to defend himself and others, and there is no need for a judge or a trial if you punish a monster. Every law that takes away this right is a crime.

Being forced to break the law doesn't mean you didn't break the law. DC is a criminal, and whether he/she would like to not be one is irrelevant.´

Legally it is. Morally it is not. And Wardens don´t need to care for stupid laws. As, in fact, noone should. However, most people are not strong enough mot to heed the law.

Nope. The law is what the law is, not what you feel it should be.

Of course not. No law binds you unless you agree voluntarily.

[Tirigon]

Sarah1281 wrote...

 Seriously? No one's saying that the Warden has to be a horrible person for doing this. Being a criminal does not make you, by default, a horrible person. Breaking the law makes you a criminal. Being caught killing your brother, slaughtering your way through a nobleman's house, imperonsonating a member of a higher caste (your official DC crime you're to be killed for), and aiding a blood mage ARE crimes. They may or may not make you a horrible person - particularly in the first case - but they are still illegal so doing them still makes you a criminal.

You are missing the point. I never said criminals can´t be Wardens. Monsters like Vaughan and Howe can´t.

[Tirigon]

Giggles_Manically wrote...


Also while i stand by killing Vaughan, the CE is still a criminal since he/she killed a noble man who hadent broken any Fereldan laws.

Erm, lol, Vaughan DID break the law. Ferelden doesn´t treat elves well, but it IS illegal to rape and kill them just for fun, and if he hadn´t been the Arl´s son he would have been imprisoned or executed already.

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

 Seriously? No one's saying that the Warden has to be a horrible person for doing this. Being a criminal does not make you, by default, a horrible person. Breaking the law makes you a criminal. Being caught killing your brother, slaughtering your way through a nobleman's house, imperonsonating a member of a higher caste (your official DC crime you're to be killed for), and aiding a blood mage ARE crimes. They may or may not make you a horrible person - particularly in the first case - but they are still illegal so doing them still makes you a criminal.

You are missing the point. I never said criminals can´t be Wardens. Monsters like Vaughan and Howe can´t.

I didn't miss your point. The posts you've made today haven't addressed them at all. And sure they can. If they survive the Joining then they are Wardens. Or do you really think that their crimes will cause them to choke and die like Daveth? 

Also, bad laws are not crimes. Crimes are things that break the law. Bad laws may be morally unsound but they are the exact opposite of crimes.

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...
Of course not. No law binds you unless you agree voluntarily.

Despite your clearly extensive study in law school, you're wrong, and no policeman, judge, or jury would agree with you. No one signs a statement agreeing to the laws of the land and agreeing to be bound by them. You are bound by them by being in a nation with laws. Just because I don't like the speed limit doesn't mean I can get off without a fine. If I don't pay the fine I go to jail. No one gets to choose which laws to agree to and which not to.