12857 réponses à ce sujet

[CalJones]

I don't think it was crappy writing so much as a lot of corner cutting.

[TJPags]

NuclearSerendipity wrote...

I know your opinion is quite different. That's what makes it interesting to discuss the subject, after all.

I understand what you mean, and I think that we agree to some degree, even if we don't mean by some words the same things. I guess I should make clear one thing: I don't mean that I believe that one's actions should have no consequences, that there should be no response whatsoever to whatever actions one make. But I do believe that those responses should not be based on the idea of "punishment" (which involves to me the idea of vengeance, and I'll explain why further on the post). Rather, they should be based on their outcomes, so to speak. It's perfectly arguable that sometimes it's better to have people jailed, and, if it really comes to this, killed. (In fact, while I didn't kill Loghain, I did tell on Jowan, not because I thought he should be punished, but rather because I thought he was acting suspiciously and would most likely be dangerous, should he escape).But not because those people have to be punished, or to "pay for their crimes", but simply because it is what would be better in the bigger picture. My problem isn't quite with the action itself taken against who commits a 'crime', but rather with its motivation. 

I understand what you mean as to why punishment wouldn't be vengeance, but we have different concepts of what that is. When I speak of vengeance, I don't mean simply personal vengeance, nor reacting to what someone did to you by doing exactly the same thing; I mean acting in order to compensate for what one has done to someone else by making he suffer the equivalent (and not the same) of what he has done. What matters is not that the one who suffers the vengeance goes through exactly the same thing, but rather that he suffers just as much, just what is due for the suffering he inflicted. I don't think it really holds to consider vengeance has meaning necessarily doing the same thing: if someone kills your daughter, but he himself doesn't have one, does that mean that you cannot get your revenge on him? Or does it mean that you'll find some other way to make him suffer just as much as you did or suffer what you think it's due for him to - perhaps, killing another relative, or simply by killing him himself?

Punishing implies, or so it seems to me, making someone pay what is due for what he has done, meaning that one has to suffer the equivalent or accordingly to what he has done. In that sense, punishing would be vengeance. But from whom? It depends: it could be a man; it could be society; it could be even an abstract entity such as Justice. (Not to forget, someone could avenge someone else: a friend killing the man who killed his friend's daughter, some Paladin avenging his Justice for what some devils have done against it, etc.). Either way, punishing seems to necessarily imply that someone has to pay something to someone else to compensate for something he has done to the latter. In that sense, it is precisely "getting back" at someone - if not, I would ask, what is it that makes punishment justifiable? Is it just that somethings ought to be punishable by definition?

I didn't kill Loghain because I didn't see what good would it bring. If there was any reason for me to think he could still do any harm - maybe, for example, he not giving up and having no chance of changing his mind, becoming a real threat to Ferelden - I could possibly have done it differently.

I guess that we don't have to grudge too much about whether or not punishment is vengeance. I could put it simply this way: While I do believe that every action must have its consequence, I don't believe that it's consequences should be based and determined by the idea of a compensation one has to make, no matter the context, to someone or something or for having done something. Rather, they should be determined accordingly to what would be best in the situation: would you kill someone who has committed terrible crimes just to make he pay for it, if you had no reason to believe he would ever do something like that again, and had plenty of reasons to believe that he can do a lot more of good alive than dead? Or, even further: would you kill someone like that who, even though he can do absolutely no harm any further, can't do any good either, just to make he pay for what he's done? Would that be better than letting he live?

And yeah, I don't think anyone intends this to make this a bigger deal than it is. We're just discussing some ideas, and a game as DAO certainly scores if it can make we discuss things like that. Since no one intends to impose on their opinions and, on the contrary, is open to discussion, there's no reason to make a fuzz about it, as much a polemic topic as it is.

Differing opinions are what make debates possible, and well stated opinions are what make debates enjoyable.

I see your position clearly, and I like how you state it.  It's very clear, very understandable, and even persuasive.  Unfortunately, not to me. 

I suppose I understand your definition of vengeance, which differs somewhat from mine.  Under your definition, I suppose any type of punishment, be it imprisonment or death or a fine, is a form of vengeance.  I suppose, while I'm not happy with terming it 'vengeance' - I just really see that as a more personal thing - I'd be okay with that term if the result is the same.

When you speak of whether a person is still a threat, or can do good, I fully understand that.  I think those considerations should go to the degree of punishment, but not to whether they should be punished.  Yes, I would imprison a brilliant scientist who might cure cancer if they were guilty of crimes in obtaining their research material.  And yes, I'd jail, demote or perhaps kill, a brilliant general who could win future battles if he was guilty of, say, genocide in the past.

I do firmly believe that crimes deserve punishment.  I agree that the punishment, of course, must fit the crime.  A negligent homicide - killing someone while swinging a baseball bat to demonstrate how to swing a baseball bat, for instance - doesn't deserve death, IMO.  Someone who does intend to kill another, and does so in a horrific way - mutilation, for instance, or torture - or someone guilty of mutiple intentional deaths, or someone guilty of what I'd consider a heinous crime - genocide, sexual abuse of a child - does, IMO, deserve death.

In the real world, I'm not sure we can ever be 100% sure that a person wouldn't go out and commit the same or similar crimes, especially if they have a history of it.  But again, the question of whether they may do it again, to me, doesn't impact so much the issue of punishment as what they're being punished for.  There are many examples of criminals continuing to commit crimes after getting out of jail, and there are plenty of cases where people DO straighten out their lives.  Can we always tell which is which?  No.  Should we forego what we see as just punishment - whatever we decide that may be - for past crimes, simply because of what they may do in the future?  IMO, no.  {erhaps take their motivation for the crime into consideration, but since we can't really know the future, I'm not sure that great consideration should be given to that.

On another note - I also (as many of you know) have a HUGE problem with Loghain's capituation at the end.  It makes no sense to me at all - he's convinced you're an Orlesian spy, planning to destroy Ferelden with the help of your Darkspawn allies, or just subjugate it for the glory of the Empire, until you beat him in a sword fight?  Then he's fine with you being in charge, and will go along with whatever you say?  To me, that's crazy.  Or, to quote The Princess Bride - INCONCEIVABLE!!!!

[Sarah1281]

Q: Now that you are a Grey Warden, what do you think of the order?
A. Since "the order" presently consists of just two people besides myself, I can't find any fault with it.

Aw, look! A vote of confidence! 

As for Loghain suddenly changing his mind...I tend to see it as he's been having some doubts about you being an evil Orlesian spy out to destroy Ferelden before but not enough to call off the Landsmeet or justify sparing you should he win (and even if he is wrong about you being sent by Celene, he still believes Alistair would be a puppet king and replace his daughter which is reason enough to procede) and then once he's beaten it's just the culmination of those doubts and he can admit that he was wrong about you.

[Costin_Razvan]

So Sarah....you going to start that Loghain Awakening fiction now that you finished I am not a tragic figure?

[Sarah1281]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

So Sarah....you going to start that Loghain Awakening fiction now that you finished I am not a tragic figure?

Eventually. I won't get the books until Christmas and I don't want to try to write him before I've read those.

[CalJones]

Now that Bioware has stopped releasing DLCs for DA, I feel a bit safer trying some mods. I am thinking of ejoslin's Zevran dialogue fix (with friendly Loghain component) - anything else? I'm also thinking the one with the sexier male bodies, or more choice of hairstyles, but I'm not sure which mods those are.

[KnightofPhoenix]

About Loghain siding with us at the Landsmeet. At that point, I think Loghain himself had doubts about us being Orlesian agents and I saw this as mostly rethoric used to persuade the Landsmeet (in addition to blaming the Wardens for Ostagar). I do think he was confused himself and not really consistent, due to the situation spiraling outside of his control. For better or worse, Loghain is a stubborn man however and won't yield easily.

After you beat him, it's clear that his main objection to you was not a possible affiliation with Orlais (though he might have somewhat believed it), but rather that you are an unqualified child that has no experience and that believes in tales like Cailan. That to me, seems to be his main objection, in addition to you trying to put a "puppet" on the throne (which could in fact be true).

Him yielding after a fight and admitting that he isn't the one to save Ferelden might be seen as irrational. But my people have a saying: "Take a friend only after a fight". Many attribute a duel not only to a contest of strength, but to a battle of wills. Duels might shed light on your adversary more than talking to some (I know people who became best friends after they beat each other up). Loghain is a warrior and I think when he dueled us, he understood us better and saw "the strength in us". It isn't completely rational, but it's along similar lines as Sten's duel.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 13 novembre 2010 - 04:30 .

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

About Loghain siding with us at the Landsmeet. At that point, I think Loghain himself had doubts about us being Orlesian agents and I saw this as mostly rethoric used to persuade the Landsmeet (in addition to blaming the Wardens for Ostagar). ... After you beat him, it's clear that his main objection to you was not a possible affiliation with Orlais (though he might have somewhat believed it), but rather that you are an unqualified child that has no experience and that believes in tales like Cailan. That to me, seems to be his main objection, in addition to you trying to put a "puppet" on the throne (which could in fact be true).

I agree. I think Loghain's accusing the surviving wardens of being Orlesian spies is tied to his blaming them for Ostagar, and is more a political expression that something he actually believes. I don't think that Loghain believes he knows your motivations (being a spy), but rather he doesn't know and generally thinks that Warden motivations are too suspicious to allow you to influence Ferelden politics. Once he better trusts your motivations, he's willing to yield.

[Addai]

CalJones wrote...

Now that Bioware has stopped releasing DLCs for DA, I feel a bit safer trying some mods. I am thinking of ejoslin's Zevran dialogue fix (with friendly Loghain component) - anything else? I'm also thinking the one with the sexier male bodies, or more choice of hairstyles, but I'm not sure which mods those are.

I have so many mods running I can't remember what the game was like without them.    It depends on what you want.  I consider ZDF a must, as well as cmessaz's Alistair mod though I don't imagine that would affect your game much.  Natural Bodies is the nudity mod and I recommend Tucked Hair by tmp7704, really anything on his project page is worth getting, such as his proportion fixes and the unisex leather armor.  Some of the weapon mods I like are Runic Armor, Phoenix Armory, and Forgotten weapons and armor.

[NuclearSerendipity]

klarabella wrote...

NuclearSerendipity wrote...
I didn't kill Loghain because I didn't see what good would it bring. If there was any reason for me to think he could still do any harm - maybe, for example, he not giving up and having no chance of changing his mind, becoming a real threat to Ferelden - I could possibly have done it differently.

From an OOC perspective I would agree. Yes, you are the player character and of course no character you recruit will make the game unbeatable. Logic dictates that no matter who you recruit, you will be the shining hero.

I'm not sure this works like that from an in character perspective. The Landsmeet suffers from crappy writing (probably due to time and money constraints) and Loghain Mac Tir lacks any notable character developement. The jump from "You are an Orlesian traitor and I''m gonna kill you" to "Hush Anora, it's over. ... Make it quick Warden, I can die now, knowing that Ferelden is in your capable hands." (HELLO? To a mage/elf/dwarf? WTF!?) is too much for me and I'm still struggling to make it work for me.

I appreciate the character, I even spare him and let him redeem himself on one of my two canon playthroughs, but that doesn't change my being critical of him and doubting this sudden turn around.

Sometimes I wonder if people mistake a lack of characterization and unclear motivation as depth. I still don't find him a particularily a deep character, not more than other characters in DAO. Like many others he does have potential, but that's it. The rest is make-your-own-favourite-character.

I see what you mean, klarabella, but it isn't what I meant to say. It was in character that I saw him as posing no longer a threat, and not OOC; I didn't do it because I thought that it wouldn't stop me from beating the game, but rather because, in a IC circunstance and considering my character's view standpoint, he didn't mean anymore to fight against the Wardens and didn't have it in him to take any other action that could further threat Ferelden at that point: he had clearly resigned and accepted that it should and would be "you" to take the wheels from that point forward. Whether his resigning as it were made sense isn't at issue here, specially because, from an in character perspective, it can't matter whether or not what happens should've happened or not: it did, and if you're in your character's position, you can't deny it did. And Loghain did resign the way it happened in the Landsmeet, which seemed, to my character, good enough a reason to not consider him a threat any longer. There was no reason (IMO, of course) to believe he wasn't earnest in his resigning, even if we assume that, in a more consistent world, it wouldn't have happened. And so my character spared him. If there was a in character reason to believe that Loghain would continue to threat Ferelden by thwarting the Grey Wardens, even if OOC I knew that I would beat the game either way, IC I might've acted differently (I'm not sure if the answer would be killing him, but maybe he should at least be imprisioned at Fort Drakon, or whatever other solution).

But with that said about the choice of sparing Loghain, you still make a fine point about the writing and the question of what makes a complex character. It's really frustrating how often money and time constraints seems to interfere in Bioware's games... NWN 2's Storm of Zehir, for instance, had such a disappointing and ridiculously rushed ending that I didn't finish it at all. I'm not sure it's the same with the Landsmeet (since what came after, as far as I could see it, wasn't poorly written - and why the ending wouldn't be affected by the rushing, if the Landsmeet were?), but it might be the case.

But there is also another point to make, also based on what you said: how the history is affected by an OOC logic: the logic which dictates that it's a game and you're the friggin' protagonist and so everyone is unexplicably more prone to listen, colaborate, follow and help you, even when it's farfetched.  One of the things that really bothered me is how, even if you're not a dwarf, you play so easily a major role in determining who will be the king of Orzammar. I mean, seriously, how is it that all of a sudden such an isolationist society as Orzammar's is wlling to let not only an outsider, but one that isn't even of the same species take such a role in their politics, Grey Warden or not? I didn't find it really believable, perhaps not so much because they let you take this role, but rather because of how willingly they do. And it seems that, quite often, the OOC fact that it's a game bends and sacrifices too much its history and its "believeablety" in order to make things easier to the player, in order to allow him to complete his game objectives and win it.

Indeed, if there's one of many good things to be said about Fallout - not the third one, since I still haven't played it and so I couldn't tell, but the first and second ones - is that, while it obviously gives your character a privileged position of sorts, it doesn't stretches that position so far that it becomes hardly believable: NPCs will still treat you like crap if they wouldn't give a crap to whether you come from a vault or not, and you can blow it with them so badly that they will even turn completing a quest impossible, and sometimes even turning an important area completely inacessible to you. But most of the games either facilitate things in such a way that makes its history not believable or put all their efforts in providing believable scenarios which facilitate things for the games as well: in fact, it'd safe to assume that most games do both things. And so it could be that the Landsmeet outcome is either a not believable scenario aiming to easy things up to the player, or a believable scenario to do so. And further more, it could be, as someone said, that it's not so much bad or not belieable writing, but rather "cutting the corners". Because I do believe that the idea of Loghain's redemption is perfectly belieable and key to understading some of the game's most important messages - on how choices could go wrong, no matter the intentions, and that you can't measure a man's intention by the result of his actions, nor the result of his actions by his intentions - even if I'm willing to admit that it might not have been executed satisfactorily.

The same goes about Loghain's complexity. It was a very sensible distinction you made, between lack of characterization and depth of character. Yet, I don't find Loghain's character, at least in what stands for me as the idea of it, as lacking in characterization. His objective, what drove him, seemed absolutely clear: the good of Ferelden, the one thing that mattered above all and everything. He was a patriot, the "citizen" taken to it's very limits, the one to who nothing means more than his nation, his country. Yet he was a man of war, and that's the only way he knew to serve and save his country. As a man of battle, it would make sense that he would respect and honor, and more than this, judge one's worth by his performance in battle and duel, as some have pointed out - and thus, by battling the warden and seeing something of Maric in him, reach the conclusion that his judgement of the Warden as a spy was a poor one, since now he could attest what the true character of the warden was through confrontation with him. I guess that, for him, one that battled such as Maric did couldn't be the kind of person willing to betray their own nation, since his character would be kindred to that of Maric himsef.

Which isn't to say that this "idea" of Loghain characterization, motives and reasons to ultimately resign were well executed in the Landsmeet -  and isn't to say, either, that his resigning didn't serve also to OOC motives of favoring the player, which it most likely did. But rather, just to say that, regardless of its execution, the concept behind Loghains character can still nevertheless be accessed through the game and appreciated by all the role it takes in what seems to me to be one of the most important points that the game makes.

Which, again, isn't to say that he's the deepest character or something like that. I agree that falls more into the make-your-own-favorite category, and I hardly see a point in deciding who should be elected the deepest character. Rather, it's just to say that he's a character quite worth discussing about.


Either way, I'm sorry, I talk way too much XD

Modifié par NuclearSerendipity, 13 novembre 2010 - 09:13 .

[Sarah1281]

One of the things that really bothered me is how, even if you're not a dwarf, you play so easily a major role in determining who will be the king of Orzammar. I mean, seriously, how is it that all of a sudden such an isolationist society as Orzammar's is wlling to let not only an outsider, but one that isn't even of the same species take such a role in their politics, Grey Warden or not? I didn't find it really believable, perhaps not so much because they let you take this role, but rather because of how willingly they do.

I would actually find it more unbelievable that they'd listen to a casteless or, though Harrowmont's supporters are on your side, an exiled kinslayer. I don't find it odd that they would listen to you, though. It's been a stalemate for three weeks and the city is rapidly hurtling towards civil war. You need a king to get your treaties signed. You don't want to wait around until they solve their own damn problems. That said, Vartag and Dulin don't trust you. Neither they nor the men they represent do anything to try to court you. They know you need a king and if you want THEIR support you need to prove yourself before you can even meet with the proposed king. The first task could possibly be accomplished by someone else but that was never presented as a 'only you can do this' kind of thing.



Then there's clearing out Jarvia's headquarters. Bhelen says his men are being too well bribed to deal with the matter and he's too busy to deal with the bribery and Harrowmont apparently didn't even make that effort. Their troops, in addition to being bribed, are also needed to protect them in the Diamond Quarter. Grey Wardens are supposed to be talented fighters so since taking out the carta would help, why not try and move things along by sending you after the carta? If they suceed, great. If not, it doesn't actually weaken the potential king's support.



Up to this point, only the potential king and his second get you involved at all. Then you're sent off to find a Paragon and it seems to be another matter (especially for Bhelen whose support is stronger than Harrowmont's without your intervention) of 'if you can, great. If not, oh well.' When you do find Branka and Caridin and take back the crown, one of the candidates for king supports letting you address the Assembly and you claim that one of the two Paragons gave you the crown and chose a king. Now, it's pretty clear that no one in your party is a smith (the only dwarf is Oghren and possibly you and neither of you are smiths and they're just not going to buy that the best human/elven smith could match a dwarven smith) and it's a brand-new and extrtemely well-made crown. It's easier to believe it if you have Branka's crown but either way, that's enough evidence supporting you found a Paragon to make you a crown.



That much no one really doubts. What you can be lying about is whether or not the Paragon really picked who you said they picked but they really have no way of knowing if you're telling the truth or not and the cultural reverence placed on a Paragon's word is such that they're not about to risk ignoring what one said in this matter. Bhelen's hardly a traditional and defies this but Harrowmont will concede on the spot.



The part that I can buy as being a little unrealistic is, if you present the crown and admit that the Paragon didn't care who ruled, when you're told to just pick someone. Even with that, however, think about the situation. Three weeks before you even arrived, the city stopped functioning properly. How long have you been in Orzammar? No fewer than two days before you went to the Deep Roads and possibly more. How long were you in the Deep Roads? Likely weeks. The Assembly still can't make up their mind no matter what anyone does and so they just want an end to the deadlock. Who else could they possibly ask to make the decision?

[NuclearSerendipity]

TJPags wrote...

Differing opinions are what make debates possible, and well stated opinions are what make debates enjoyable.

Amen to that.

I see your position clearly, and I like how you state it.  It's very clear, very understandable, and even persuasive.  Unfortunately, not to me. 

I suppose I understand your definition of vengeance, which differs somewhat from mine.  Under your definition, I suppose any type of punishment, be it imprisonment or death or a fine, is a form of vengeance.  I suppose, while I'm not happy with terming it 'vengeance' - I just really see that as a more personal thing - I'd be okay with that term if the result is the same.

When you speak of whether a person is still a threat, or can do good, I fully understand that.  I think those considerations should go to the degree of punishment, but not to whether they should be punished.  Yes, I would imprison a brilliant scientist who might cure cancer if they were guilty of crimes in obtaining their research material.  And yes, I'd jail, demote or perhaps kill, a brilliant general who could win future battles if he was guilty of, say, genocide in the past.

I do firmly believe that crimes deserve punishment.  I agree that the punishment, of course, must fit the crime.  A negligent homicide - killing someone while swinging a baseball bat to demonstrate how to swing a baseball bat, for instance - doesn't deserve death, IMO.  Someone who does intend to kill another, and does so in a horrific way - mutilation, for instance, or torture - or someone guilty of mutiple intentional deaths, or someone guilty of what I'd consider a heinous crime - genocide, sexual abuse of a child - does, IMO, deserve death.

In the real world, I'm not sure we can ever be 100% sure that a person wouldn't go out and commit the same or similar crimes, especially if they have a history of it.  But again, the question of whether they may do it again, to me, doesn't impact so much the issue of punishment as what they're being punished for.  There are many examples of criminals continuing to commit crimes after getting out of jail, and there are plenty of cases where people DO straighten out their lives.  Can we always tell which is which?  No.  Should we forego what we see as just punishment - whatever we decide that may be - for past crimes, simply because of what they may do in the future?  IMO, no.  {erhaps take their motivation for the crime into consideration, but since we can't really know the future, I'm not sure that great consideration should be given to that.

On another note - I also (as many of you know) have a HUGE problem with Loghain's capituation at the end.  It makes no sense to me at all - he's convinced you're an Orlesian spy, planning to destroy Ferelden with the help of your Darkspawn allies, or just subjugate it for the glory of the Empire, until you beat him in a sword fight?  Then he's fine with you being in charge, and will go along with whatever you say?  To me, that's crazy.  Or, to quote The Princess Bride - INCONCEIVABLE!!!!

I'm flattered, even if you don't agree with me. I guess we both have already quite clear what is it that both of us think on the matter. But since that is already the case, I would like to ask: since it is clear that you believe that punishment (fit for the crime of course) is absolutely necessary, why is it that it should be so, no matter the context? What is it that makes punishment necessarily due to a crime commited, no matter the situation? On what grounds should there always be a such a punishment?

At any rate, I have to rectify what I said and make some things clearer: I don't believe that punishment is never due; I don't believe that people should never pay for what they did; I just believe that punishment shouldn't be due by principle. I guess that, when I put it that way, it makes me realize, on one hand, that you were right to say that punishment isn't necessarily vengeance. On the other hand, however, it makes me see it as if punishment by principle - and that seems to me what you propose - becomes a form of vengeance. I guess what I'm saying is that punishment isn't vengeance only if it aims for the greater good, and not for getting compensation for something someone has done to someone else. It may be that vengeance is coincidentally what leads to a greater good; but that doesn't means that is what it aims for by principle.

Changing a little the subject, you brought a very important topic to the discussion: the matter of certainty. I agree completely with you when you say that you can't be 100% sure that someone who commited a crime won't do it again, and so I must make myself clearer on what I meant, specially because that's such an important topic to me.
It wasn't coincidental that I never said "I was sure" Loghain wouldn't be any threat anymore, but rather, that "I had no reasons" to believe he would be. The difference I make relies fully on how I conceive the concept of "reasonable doubt", as opposed to mere doubt. What is reasonable doubt? It's a doubt based on a reason that refers specifically to the matter at hand, no matter if it could also be applied elsewhere. In other words, it's a reason to have doubts about this case specifically and that raises doubt about it through it's specificity (which is not to be counfounded with it's singularity: many cases can share specificities; what I mean is that reasonable doubt is that which refers to those specificities, and not the case in it's "generalities", so to speak). Accordingly to this, "Everything is possible" isn't basis for reasonable doubt; it has nothing to do with any case in specific and in it's specificity, but only with all cases in general: it gives me no reason to have doubts about this case in specific. More than that, it's a reason that go both ways: it stands for the accused's guilty as much as for his innocence. "The accused couldn't be in the room at the time of the murder", however, is grounds to reasonable doubt about the guilty of the man in this case of murder in specific. A perfect way to illustrate what I mean is through the movie Twelve Angry Men: it shows from the beggining to the end what I understand as reasonable doubt, and it's contrast to what would be some a sort of  "empty" doubt.

Analogically, that I have no way to be certain that a person who commited such and such crimes wouldn't do it again doesn't seems to me ground for reasonable doubt - it's just a general statement that talks about cases of criminals in general, and not in their specificity: it gives me no reason to believe this criminal in specific would commit again the same crime. More than that, it also goes both ways: I have no way to be certain that they would commit these crimes again, unless I assume that it's always true that criminals who commited a crime are likely to do it again, which doesn't really seems to hold for me. From my character's point of view, thus, there wasn't any reasons specific to Loghain for him to commit his crimes again, and since non-specific reasons go both ways (making as likely that he'll commit as he won't) and there were reasons specific to him to believe that he wouldn't (based on the way and context in which he resigned, even if it was absurd, since it still happened, nevertheless), I couldn't see it as more reasonable to kill him. Furthermore, when the Joining was purposed, there was still even reasons specific to him to believe that he could still do some good. And thus, it seemed more reasonable to me to spare rather than kill him.


Of course, yet again, that's only my opinion, not any sort of lecture whatsoever. It's just that, since you've brought that subject on, I thought it'd be interesting to try to offer and defend my grounds for taking that position. It is a subject, after all, that I really wanted to discuss about.

Modifié par NuclearSerendipity, 13 novembre 2010 - 09:39 .

[NuclearSerendipity]

Sarah1281 wrote...

One of the things that really bothered me is how, even if you're not a dwarf, you play so easily a major role in determining who will be the king of Orzammar. I mean, seriously, how is it that all of a sudden such an isolationist society as Orzammar's is wlling to let not only an outsider, but one that isn't even of the same species take such a role in their politics, Grey Warden or not? I didn't find it really believable, perhaps not so much because they let you take this role, but rather because of how willingly they do.

I would actually find it more unbelievable that they'd listen to a casteless or, though Harrowmont's supporters are on your side, an exiled kinslayer. I don't find it odd that they would listen to you, though....

That... Kinda left me speechless. XD Alright, you managed to convince me the whole Orzammar situation isn't quite as unconvincing as I thought, and even that it's actually believable, except a little bit for the crown part you mentioned. It didn't bother me that much not only because of what you said about the smiths, but also because one of the Dashyers (sp?) claims that its runes could only be known by very specific dwarves, or something like that. But it's still a little unbelievable, yes, that they would take your word for what the paragon said, but then again, as you pointed out, not that much. On the whole, though, you managed to convince me that the Orzammar's storyline is far more believable than I thought. Thanks for making me like DAO even more.

[DragonRacer13]

Persephone wrote...

DragonRacer13 wrote...

Not that anyone really cares, as we are all (myself included) totally and justifiably distracted by the awesomeness that are both Persephone and Addai's stories (which are updated much more quickly and frequently than I am humanly capable of), but Chapter 4 of my own humble contribution to Loghain fanfics is up. Finally. After much Mojave Wasteland distraction, curse it all.

www.fanfiction.net/s/6314394/1/The_Hand_Were_Dealt

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. *Blushes*

I reviewed. It's a LOVELY chapter.

Thank you kindly. And between you and Addai finally posting up your Wardens/protagonists of your respective fics, I finally took the plunge and attempted shots of my Kallian (complete with griffon-esque vallaslin from her Dalish buddies). Character Creator was my best chance at a close-up, given I'm taking digital pics from my PS3, so I loaded up a new game and re-created her to get the shots.

[Morwen Eledhwen]

DragonRacer13 wrote...

Not that anyone really cares, as we are all (myself included) totally and justifiably distracted by the awesomeness that are both Persephone and Addai's stories (which are updated much more quickly and frequently than I am humanly capable of), but Chapter 4 of my own humble contribution to Loghain fanfics is up. Finally. After much Mojave Wasteland distraction, curse it all.

www.fanfiction.net/s/6314394/1/The_Hand_Were_Dealt

Yay! Very nice. I love seeing the resemblances and differences between our various ff Loghains. And the Wardens they're paired with, of course.

[Persephone]

DragonRacer13 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

DragonRacer13 wrote...

Not that anyone really cares, as we are all (myself included) totally and justifiably distracted by the awesomeness that are both Persephone and Addai's stories (which are updated much more quickly and frequently than I am humanly capable of), but Chapter 4 of my own humble contribution to Loghain fanfics is up. Finally. After much Mojave Wasteland distraction, curse it all.

www.fanfiction.net/s/6314394/1/The_Hand_Were_Dealt

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. *Blushes*

I reviewed. It's a LOVELY chapter.

Thank you kindly. And between you and Addai finally posting up your Wardens/protagonists of your respective fics, I finally took the plunge and attempted shots of my Kallian (complete with griffon-esque vallaslin from her Dalish buddies). Character Creator was my best chance at a close-up, given I'm taking digital pics from my PS3, so I loaded up a new game and re-created her to get the shots.

*Snip*

Oh, she is a beauty!!!

And I bring you a little Rhiannon/Loghain closeness:

I wish I had more cutscenes to work with. (I am not ingrateful, I'm glad that those scenes were made)

[Addai]

Chapter 13 of The Arrangement.  Enjoy.

[phaonica]

Addai67 wrote...

Chapter 13 of The Arrangement.  Enjoy.

Whew, that was intense. My heart is still racing!

[Costin_Razvan]

You do realize that you are making me hate Cailan even more right? "Chuckle".

[Persephone]

Addai67 wrote...

Chapter 13 of The Arrangement.  Enjoy.

Cailan.........GRrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......

But oh, the drama!!! And how apt that she wants to name him Gareth.

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

You do realize that you are making me hate Cailan even more right? "Chuckle".

I am aware. 

[Addai]

phaonica wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Chapter 13 of The Arrangement.  Enjoy.

Whew, that was intense. My heart is still racing!

That's a good sign!  Thanks. 

[TJPags]

NuclearSerendipity wrote...

I'm flattered, even if you don't agree with me. I guess we both have already quite clear what is it that both of us think on the matter. But since that is already the case, I would like to ask: since it is clear that you believe that punishment (fit for the crime of course) is absolutely necessary, why is it that it should be so, no matter the context? What is it that makes punishment necessarily due to a crime commited, no matter the situation? On what grounds should there always be a such a punishment?

At any rate, I have to rectify what I said and make some things clearer: I don't believe that punishment is never due; I don't believe that people should never pay for what they did; I just believe that punishment shouldn't be due by principle. I guess that, when I put it that way, it makes me realize, on one hand, that you were right to say that punishment isn't necessarily vengeance. On the other hand, however, it makes me see it as if punishment by principle - and that seems to me what you propose - becomes a form of vengeance. I guess what I'm saying is that punishment isn't vengeance only if it aims for the greater good, and not for getting compensation for something someone has done to someone else. It may be that vengeance is coincidentally what leads to a greater good; but that doesn't means that is what it aims for by principle.

Changing a little the subject, you brought a very important topic to the discussion: the matter of certainty. I agree completely with you when you say that you can't be 100% sure that someone who commited a crime won't do it again, and so I must make myself clearer on what I meant, specially because that's such an important topic to me.
It wasn't coincidental that I never said "I was sure" Loghain wouldn't be any threat anymore, but rather, that "I had no reasons" to believe he would be. The difference I make relies fully on how I conceive the concept of "reasonable doubt", as opposed to mere doubt. What is reasonable doubt? It's a doubt based on a reason that refers specifically to the matter at hand, no matter if it could also be applied elsewhere. In other words, it's a reason to have doubts about this case specifically and that raises doubt about it through it's specificity (which is not to be counfounded with it's singularity: many cases can share specificities; what I mean is that reasonable doubt is that which refers to those specificities, and not the case in it's "generalities", so to speak). Accordingly to this, "Everything is possible" isn't basis for reasonable doubt; it has nothing to do with any case in specific and in it's specificity, but only with all cases in general: it gives me no reason to have doubts about this case in specific. More than that, it's a reason that go both ways: it stands for the accused's guilty as much as for his innocence. "The accused couldn't be in the room at the time of the murder", however, is grounds to reasonable doubt about the guilty of the man in this case of murder in specific. A perfect way to illustrate what I mean is through the movie Twelve Angry Men: it shows from the beggining to the end what I understand as reasonable doubt, and it's contrast to what would be some a sort of  "empty" doubt.

Analogically, that I have no way to be certain that a person who commited such and such crimes wouldn't do it again doesn't seems to me ground for reasonable doubt - it's just a general statement that talks about cases of criminals in general, and not in their specificity: it gives me no reason to believe this criminal in specific would commit again the same crime. More than that, it also goes both ways: I have no way to be certain that they would commit these crimes again, unless I assume that it's always true that criminals who commited a crime are likely to do it again, which doesn't really seems to hold for me. From my character's point of view, thus, there wasn't any reasons specific to Loghain for him to commit his crimes again, and since non-specific reasons go both ways (making as likely that he'll commit as he won't) and there were reasons specific to him to believe that he wouldn't (based on the way and context in which he resigned, even if it was absurd, since it still happened, nevertheless), I couldn't see it as more reasonable to kill him. Furthermore, when the Joining was purposed, there was still even reasons specific to him to believe that he could still do some good. And thus, it seemed more reasonable to me to spare rather than kill him.


Of course, yet again, that's only my opinion, not any sort of lecture whatsoever. It's just that, since you've brought that subject on, I thought it'd be interesting to try to offer and defend my grounds for taking that position. It is a subject, after all, that I really wanted to discuss about.

First, I'm snippiing some of this, simply because we both are rather wordy - not a criticism - and therefore, I'm looking to save some space.  That said, let me address some of what you said.

Yes, punishment is always due a crime.  The level of punishment is open to debate, but some punishment, I see that as a necesity.  Why?  Because there must be some consequence to committing a crime, otherwise there is no point in making something a crime.  And I mean that for everything from murder and rape to shoplifting and pickpocketing.  If we are not going to punish behavior that we declare to be illegal, then why is it illegal?  How can we ever expect someone to obey laws if there are no consequences to their actions?  If you define this as vengeance by principle - an interesting idea - so be it.  I feel it's necesary, no matter what it's called.

As to doubt and certainty - I agree completely.  Anyone may do something.  They may do it more than once.  Yet I'd never advocate jailing someone for what they might do, only what they did do.  So yes, when considering the punishment for a crime committed, the liklihood of that person doing it again - or doing something else - has to be considered.  What evidence is there to indicate they will?  If there is none, well, then punish them for this, and not for what they might do.  If they do commit the crime again, well, then we obviously have more of a pattern, and the punishment should be more severe.

Now, this comes with the application of logic, as well.  A first time criminal, whose crime is the assault on a family, including the rape and murder of a young girl and her mother while the father/husband was made to watch - that person, I don't need to consider if they'll do it again.  What they already did deserves the ultimate punishment, IMO.  A shoplifter, on the other hand, I may simply fine the cost of the goods stolen, the first time.  The second time, maybe probation.  The third time, short jail time.  As we get to time #4, 5, etc, we see that this person is a serial shoplifter, and perhaps should be put away for a few years.

And so that we keep this somewhat on topic - I apply my rationale to Loghain as follows:  He disobeyed orders at Ostagar by not engaging, and by not securing the Tower, and for not being more concerned about an entire army of scouts missing in the wilds.  He then siezed power illegally.  He framed others for his actions at Ostagar.  He was, at the least, negligent in his illegal rule by not knowing that someone he was relying on, and who was operating on under his command, was imprisoning, torturing and murdering nobles, templars, and others.  He responded to challenges to his illegal rule by engaging in a civil war with those who challenged his actions.  He sold people into slavery to finance his illegal rule and ill-advised (at the very least) civil war.  His second in command attempts to use force to prevent my appearance in the Landsmeet, another instance of him not being able or inclined to control those under his authority.  He falsely accuses me of being an Orlesian spy, in order to attempt to justify the acts above.

I view all these as crimes (and no, we don't need to debate whether they are or are not - it's been done to death, and I know people have justifications and explanations for why each act is excusable or understandable - this is my opinion I'm giving).  Many of these crimes individually, IMO, deserve harsh punishment, and likely death.  Combined, the surely do - especially since the game gives me only 2 options - kill him, or make him a Grey Warden.  Making him a Grey Warden is simply not enough of a punishment, to me.  That leaves his execution.

[CalJones]

Nice one Addai. Cailan is a ******. I'm glad you gave the child black hair to stifle those rumours!

[Costin_Razvan]

He disobeyed orders at Ostagar by not engaging

Fereldan does not have a central bureaucracy in way so that Cailan can order Loghain what to do. Loghain was there due to his own choice so that he could help his friend's child and to defend Fereldan, not because of his obligations in law to Cailan.

In Fereldan you cannot hold a noble accountable for his actions without use of military force given the nature of Fereldan politics ( which is why I argued quite strongly that Fereldan needs to get rid of this **** system and ASAP ).

I also disagree on punishment.  Yes steps should be taken so that people don't repeat those crimes ( even killing them if necessary ) or that they do not happen at all. We all must pay up for our sins however, sooner or later, but I feel only God has the real right to judge people for their actions and determine their punishment.

That is why I refrain from judging others in the vast majority of cases, but I find it dificult to not do so when it comes to Cailan, Harrowmont, Anderson ( in ME2 ), Eamon and to a lesser degree Alistair and Wynne.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 14 novembre 2010 - 09:19 .