12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Though, yes. I am one of those who supports Feudalism being considered for those states with a top-down monarchy. ( among the other conditions )

Then there is our miscommunication.  To me feudalism implies a system of obligations and entitlements that goes in both directions, liege lord< - >vassal lords< - >freeholders and serfs.  Certainly that is the system you see in England and Scotland throughout most of the medieval period.  Since Ferelden is loosely based on medieval Scotland, to my mind it fits the pattern very well.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Addai67 wrote...


People you talk to in Ostagar such as the kennelmaster say you're all there at the king's service.

Yes you are. Because your organization was called, not commanded, at the kings request. As are all the other nobles there. Because it is an internal matter, and the king sent out a call for arms. On internal affairs regarding the safety of the kingdom, it is politc to offer the king your help. Not only does it secure loyalty with him, but puts you ahead of neighbors who choose to ignore the call.

Again I note what Bryce says about the king's summons.  He says they must go at the king's behest, not just as a practical matter.  Eamon likewise stays out of it at the king's behest, he doesn't just march on his own even though that is his wish.

Politcs is practicality. Bryce is also a royalist, and of his own choice, supports the crown. He does not send troops because he HAS to. It is because he feels obliged to, as part of his rank, as well as setting an example. Bryce could have just as easily told the king to go stuff himself, and there is really little Cailan could have done, other than relations souring. Bryce might even lose a few allies, depending on the mood of the realm, or many lesser houses might follow his example.

But it would not have been treason, nor would it have been punishabl;e by feudal standards. The king would need the permission of Landsmeet to act against one of their peers. That's how things ran in medieval Britain, as well as Ferelden.

None of this means that nobles did not conspire against rulers, but in Ferelden as in medieval Europe, it was treason nonetheless.

It is only treason if the rest of the nobility see it as such. Refusing a king's request for an army was not treason, many lesser nobles did so in Medieval Europe when the kings were trying to gather armies for the crusades. Many nobles refused, or had to be bribed by the crown. Conspiring directly against the crown was treason, but refusing many demands was not. Refusal could have serious consequences, depending on the situation. It could weaken the influence and standing of your noble house, allowing rivals more room to plot against you. And should you require a boon from the king, well, you're pretty much SOL since you didn't mutually scratch each other's backs.

But as far as treason, to where the king or other nobles could march against you and destroy you or have you executed, no.

[Addai]

If you are a teyrn at all, it is because the king has a) granted you the title or confirms it as a matter of inheritance. And you will have sworn an oath of fealty much as the vassal lords do to the Arl(essa) of Amaranthine in Awakening. Hence you owe the king service, it is not simply at your leave. Yes, as I've been saying all along, it is a two-way street and also the king cannot act arbitrarily because people would revolt. But you DO owe the king fealty even as a teyrn, and if you act against the king, it is treason. Or is there some definition of treason- of breaking faith- of which I'm unaware?

Modifié par Addai67, 27 août 2010 - 03:43 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Treason is a matter of perspective, like alot of things. One man's treason is another man's virtue. It's all in who is percieving it, and the reasons why they do it.



It was treasonous when the American colonists rebelled against Britain, as far as the king and his country were concerned. To the revolutionaries, it was the highest virtue.



You owe the king your fealty so long as doing so is beneficial. When the king starts making demands or requests that you believe to be suicidal, or would weaken your position, or cost you your fortunes and status,, or, if you are the idealist and believe your king to be acting against the best interests of your country, then your oath of fealty ends and realpolitik begins.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Just to add my two cents before I go break my fast.

"Treason" has a lot to do with who wins and who loses. Winners are rarely qualified as traitors, and their victims are the ones who are more often than not qualified as traitors. Had Salah Al Din not defeated the Crusades, he would have probably been seen as a traitor who almost caused a civil war. But his victory vindicated him.

Loghain of course lost, so qualifying him of treason is much easier. Had he won, there would not be this discussion. So like Skadi says, treason will always remain a matter of perspective.

Anyways, gtg, very hungry lol

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 août 2010 - 04:10 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

MariSkep wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Treason is a matter of perspective, like alot of things. One man's treason is another man's virtue. It's all in who is percieving it, and the reasons why they do it.

You are over simplifying the situation. Ask yourself this, what does it say to a standing army if their nation's most esteemed general has no qualms with abandoning them in the middle of battle under incredibly suspect circumstances? 

Still a matter of perspective. If you remember the gossips in towns you visit, as they speak, they talk about Loghain getting out just in time. To the armies who survived, he's a hero protecting them from the real traitors, the Grey Wardens. To those who were in the king's forces, well, they are all dead or scattered to the four winds. Ferelden was divided. There were those who found nothing suspect at all about the circumstances. Loghain claimed there was no choice, they were doomed, he left the battle saving what forces he could before they all died. Whether or not whoever listens believes him is your answer.

Again, perspective. Who is writing the tale, who's calling what.

[Addai]

The gossips talk about Loghain getting out in time because they believe his misinformation about the Wardens. If what Loghain did wasn't treason, why does he have to find a scapegoat to pin treason on? It's because he knows what he did is treasonous, he needs to find someone else to throw up as a smokescreen.  Of course he feels what he did is justified but nevertheless he would not be in CYA mode if what he did were legitimate or widely supported.

Modifié par Addai67, 27 août 2010 - 04:44 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

MariSkep wrote...



I'm not asking for a lesson on moral relativity. Honestly I don't care about 'perspective' or whatever. This is a very nasty precedent to set and call me naive or childish but it seems like a ****** poor way to manage a military.

Then you haven't studied much military history. Having to abandon friendly forces to meet their doom has happened  in history by great generals, in order to save what forces they can. Such actions were not looked upon like the end of civilization or the military. Leaders have had to do this, when they were left with no other options. Staying around and "fighting to the death" sounds so cool and heroic. It's also the epitaph of a defeated army, and no general with any brains would want such.

Plus, after Ostagar, there really is no standing army left. From what we learn in the game, all of Cailain's forces were down there. The other armies belong to other nobles who weren't there. From the perspective of those militaries, Loghain withdrawing was a sound tactical descision. Morality goes by the wayside really quick in times of war.

The most likely result, in the minds of the remaining armies, is that they will think, that if the greatest, most patriotic general in Ferelden had to abandon the king, then in their minds, the enemy they face is more serious than they thought.

[phaonica]

Well it does kind of depend on how you're defining treason. Is refusing the king's orders always treason? If Loghain had refused to engage in the battle in the first place, would that have been treason?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Addai67 wrote...

The gossips talk about Loghain getting out in time because they believe his misinformation about the Wardens. If what Loghain did wasn't treason, why does he have to find a scapegoat to pin treason on? It's because he knows what he did is treasonous, he needs to find someone else to throw up as a smokescreen.  Of course he feels what he did is justified but nevertheless he would not be in CYA mode if what he did were legitimate or widely supported.

Misinformation is all anyone in Ferelden has. They don't have lightning communications, information is sparse. Thus, it is what the population will go by.

You make the mistake of declaring absolutes, when there are none. Loghain's treachery is debateable, again, depending on perspective. Loghain choosing the Wardens as scapegoats proves nothing. We already know he geuniely believes them to be agents of Orlais. So he could very well believe they were responsible. He isn't the m,ost rational or logical of people. We know he is delududed and paranoid. In his mind, he did not commit treason, he saved Ferelden from it. Cailain was betraying ferelden in his view by allying himself with what he thought was an Orlesian group.

One's own personal perspective determines the ultimate verdict. But like everything else in this game, it's simply not absolute or determined. Even the cutscene where he retreats is open to interpretation, as well as conversations with him afterwards, if he is recruited.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

MariSkep wrote...


I was going to say something but decided against it.

You are right I have not studied much military history and am largely ignorant of what compels officers to do what they do and the decisions the powerful 'must' make to maintain their state..

So are 95% of the enlisted troops that follow them. But they still follow. Been doing it since the dawn of mankind.

You average soldier has no clue about the bigger picture. As they often told us enlisted in the army: "You aren't being paid to think. You are being paid to act on command." The officers and bigwigs do the thinking, planning, and ultimate descision making. That's how wars are fought and won. Many descisions will look incredibly ugly, callous, or evil. But war is not a moral enterprise, and fighting a war by moral or sentimental methods is a sure path to defeat. And the only rule of war is to win.

History is written by the victors, who are always the good guys in the books, no matter what sorts of wicked and inhuman acts they have engaged in to win the war.

[Addai]

If we want to posit complete relativism, then yes, we're not going to get anywhere, we can talk in circles here all day and it all comes down to might making right. However the game does not allow complete relativism. It imposes a conclusion whereby the Wardens are vindicated, Loghain is defeated and stripped of title, and the Orlesians do in fact come into Ferelden (albeit not chevaliers).

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Addai67 wrote...

If we want to posit complete relativism, then yes, we're not going to get anywhere, we can talk in circles here all day and it all comes down to might making right. However the game does not allow complete relativism. It imposes a conclusion whereby the Wardens are vindicated, Loghain is defeated and stripped of title, and the Orlesians do in fact come into Ferelden (albeit not chevaliers).

That's pure game mechanics, though. Such things must happen to continue the game as the developers wished it to. It still does not resolve issues of Loghain's right or wrongness. Loghain is defeated because your Warden is more powerful than Loghain, not because your Warden or Loghain is in the wrong or right. Thus in spirit, it is still highly relative, all varying on perspective of whose story one is playing.

A warden can totally believe Loghain is 100% in the right, and agree with him, even make him your BFF. The only thing that Loghain can be considered completely and absolutely wrong on is his belief the Wardens are unecessary to defeat the blight. But then again, the majority of Thedas are probably in the same boat, since even you don't realize just why Wardens are necessary until Riordan gives you "the talk". His wrongness there is one of pure ignorance, since he knows nothing about The Joining, the Taint, and the archdemon/Warden soul issue. But neither does anyone else who is not a Warden.

The Orlesians didn't come to Ferelden, the Wardens did. Despite Loghain's paranoia, the Wardens are an organization with no borders. They do not come on behalf of the Orlesian empress in Awakening, they come because the First Warden commanded them to. Their nationality of birth only matters to people who care about such things. The Wardens have their own agendas, often removed from the countries they dwell in.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Speaking of Salah Al Din, I just met Ghassan Massoud, the guy who played Saladin in Kingdom of Heaven, in a restaurant at supper lol

Anyways, too busy getting ready to travel, so won't get into this much. But the game does not impose on us how we "should" view Loghain, nor how Ferelden views him as we can lose the landsmeet. It imposes that Loghain is an antagonist only because he does not believe the Wardens are necessary (and I don't blame him). But like Skadi said, a Warden can agree with Loghain on all other issues with no problem.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 août 2010 - 06:59 .

[phaonica]

I agree that because the game limits your actions you are not free to come to any conclusion you want. But just because the game doesn't allow for *complete* relativism doesn't mean that the game doesn't allow for a relative perspective within the limitations of those choices.



The game allows us to judge whether or not Loghain is guilty of treason, but it does not give us a definitive guideline for judgment in the context of Ferelden's government. We have to draw not only the legal meaning but also the spirit of the meaning of treason from sources outside the context of the game, and determine how those meanings would or would not apply within the context of the game. In this sense I do think that "guilty of treason" is relative because we can conclude varying degrees of guilt.

[Addai]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

That's pure game mechanics, though. Such things must happen to continue the game as the developers wished it to. It still does not resolve issues of Loghain's right or wrongness. Loghain is defeated because your Warden is more powerful than Loghain, not because your Warden or Loghain is in the wrong or right. Thus in spirit, it is still highly relative, all varying on perspective of whose story one is playing.

I don't consider story line to be "game mechanics," and the fact that Loghain is stripped of title and his charges of treason against the Wardens are overturned speaks a little more forcefully to how the game's story is resolved than you are proposing here.  There is no option simply to let Loghain go free and go back to Gwaren, for instance.  It seems to me you see DAO as more of an open-ended story than it actually is.

The Orlesians didn't come to Ferelden, the Wardens did.

As you point out, to Loghain it's one and the same, so again the game does not take his perspective on the matter.

Not that I am disputing the larger claim that the game doesn't give you much that lets you see Loghain's motives.  It pretty forcefully propels him into villain status, albeit one who can be redeemed by the hero.  Then again, we don't see much more than a caricature of Cailan, either.

Modifié par Addai67, 27 août 2010 - 07:06 .

[Sarah1281]

I don't consider story line to be "game mechanics," and the fact that Loghain is stripped of title and his charges of treason against the Wardens are overturned speaks a little more forcefully to how the game's story is resolved than you are proposing here. There is no option simply to let Loghain go free and go back to Gwaren, for instance. It seems to me you see DAO as more of an open-ended story than it actually is.

Is your argument that the Landsmeet finds Loghain guilty of treason since he loses the duel and possibly the vote? We all know that. That doesn't mean he is automatically guilty. The Wardens were declared guilty of murdering Cailan by the ruler of Ferelden and does that mean that any of them was particularly responsible for Cailan's death? Hardly.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I never saw Loghain as a villain, but as an antagonist. And I never saw the game as forcing me to view him as such. And even if the writers were trying to do this, I couldn't care less. But the thing about DA is that the game does not try to dictate on us a morality or how we *should* view things, barring obvious game limitations.

[Addai]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I don't consider story line to be "game mechanics," and the fact that Loghain is stripped of title and his charges of treason against the Wardens are overturned speaks a little more forcefully to how the game's story is resolved than you are proposing here. There is no option simply to let Loghain go free and go back to Gwaren, for instance. It seems to me you see DAO as more of an open-ended story than it actually is.

Is your argument that the Landsmeet finds Loghain guilty of treason since he loses the duel and possibly the vote? We all know that. That doesn't mean he is automatically guilty. The Wardens were declared guilty of murdering Cailan by the ruler of Ferelden and does that mean that any of them was particularly responsible for Cailan's death? Hardly.

People were complaining that the game did not allow you to side with Loghain from the beginning.  I pointed out that the facts of the story, such as Loghain retreating from Ostagar and more to the point blaming the Wardens and trying to kill you, don't leave much room for "well, he's probably a good guy, let's go talk to him and we can work this out."  It enforces a point of view because, well, that's the story POV and it's borne out through the resolution as well.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I never saw Loghain as a villain, but as an antagonist. And I never saw the game as forcing me to view him as such. And even if the writers were trying to do this, I couldn't care less. But the thing about DA is that the game does not try to dictate on us a morality or how we *should* view things, barring obvious game limitations.

This. Depending on the Warden I play, Loghain can range from villian to misunderstood and confused hero. From my own perspective, in general, Loghain never felt like a villian in the basic sense of the word. He was a powerful antagonist and opponent, but in terms of villany, Howe, Vaughn, Uldred, even Branka fit the villian mold much better. As far as main villian, it was the archdemon, who really sucked at the role.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The story can't be like this because Loghain is determined to believe that we are Orlesian agents. It has nothing to do with what the Warden might think. He only comes to his senses after he is beaten, that's his character. At the end, we can still make him a brother in arms and have him as our father in law.

[phaonica]

Addai67 wrote...

I don't consider story line to be "game mechanics," and the fact that Loghain is stripped of title and his charges of treason against the Wardens are overturned speaks a little more forcefully to how the game's story is resolved than you are proposing here.  There is no option simply to let Loghain go free and go back to Gwaren, for instance.  It seems to me you see DAO as more of an open-ended story than it actually is.

I remember times when my actions were limited/dictated, but I don't recall anywhere where my reasons for my actions were dictated. No, I can't let Loghain go back to Gwaren. I have to figure out for myself why that is. However, nowhere in the game does it say "You don't allow Loghain to go back to Gwaren because he can't be trusted with the armies." or whatever. I have to execute Howe, too. I have to decide what my reasons for that are. However, the game *still* doesn't say anywhere, "You execute Howe to satisfy your need for revenge." The story may not be completely open-ended, but your perspective does seem to be open.