Axekix wrote...
That doesn't make it any less of an assumption on the Warden's part when there is nothing to suggest as much.
She already decieved you once, to her own admittance, why couldn't she lie to you again?
Precedents can be suggestive. If someone lied to you once (or you htink they lied to you), you would be hardpressed to believe them the second time.
Not so much. The two are intertwined, specifically in the example I'm using. Laws are control, specifically because a society can't function without them. I certainly wouldn't argue that all laws are just, but I think most would agree that laws protecting basic human rights, such as laws against murder, are. If you're going to rationally claim a murder is "justified" you would need a very good reason to believe the victim posed a serious threat. We have no such reason with Morrigan.
It's irrelevent in this situation because laws won't apply here. And if you want to use law as your argument, then Morrigan is an outlaw apostate that should be killed regardless. And "human rights" don't exist in that context. The concept of human right comes much later, so it cannot be applied in-game.
If you want to have a character that truly respects not only the law but also the norm and morality of the time, then that character must kill Morrigan for being a maleficarum.
Some people can have very good reasons to want to kill her. Her questionable ethics, her refusal to explain, her manipulating you before and her meddling with elements that historically have been proven to be dangerous. I already said that and I am repeating myself.
You will say we know nothing of her intent. But if someone doesn't trust her intent and knows what she is capable or willing to do in Origins, then that's enough for them.
A warden who never got to know her, perhaps. In that case killing her would be less impactful. Do you think anyone who has legitimately invested in her character would reach that conclusion?
No comment on that. I am certainly not going to impose my interpretation of the character. If they invested in her character and still saw her as "evil" and dangerous, then that's that.
I personally do not see Morrigan as any of that because of my own interpretation.
Axekix wrote...
While I know you are arguing hypothetically, what would you base the assertion that she's dangerous on?
Her what might be percieved as questionable ethics in Origins.
And that historically speaking, Old Gods and tevinter mirrors =can be seen as dangerous things to meddle with. Add her desire to change the world, in ways that she refuses to explain.
All three combined might be seen as dangerous.
Axekix wrote...
I was referencing the claim that Morrigan is looking to change the world.
And she does, the way she smiles when she says so and claims it will usher in freedom. If you don't trust her and question her moprality or straight up reject it, why would you feel ok with her planing to change the world using powers that have in the past caused disaster?
Axekix wrote...
Certainly people can do whatever they want, but claiming an action is justifiable is to claim said action is "right" based on the information at hand. That requires more reasoning than simply appealing to perspective.
No, when I say "justifiable", I mean it's capable of being justified by a certain amount of people. It doesn't mean I think it's right. When I think something is right, I say "justified" and not "justifiable".