12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

And I must repeat the question: Where do we learn of missing scouts? The one band overwhelmed close to the camp in the Korcari Wilds?

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Persephone wrote...
Eliminate him how though? Without becoming guilty of regicide, that is?

Use the same poison he used on Eamon and incapacitate him for a while.
Outright kill him and say it was the taint that got him (since he fights on the frontlines, it's not farfetched). Or the Wardens and Orlesians who did it.

He could have shifted the blame away from himself easily. But he didn't do that, sadly.

I guess he isn't as cold blooded as many of his detractors would like him to be.

[Wulfram]

Persephone wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Loghain's suspicions about Orlais start looking crazy when large chunks of the Kingdom are swallowed by the blight and he's still going on about them.

He doesn't know it's a Blight. He doesn't see Archie every night. Most people think it is on a Blight until this scenario has happened. And Blight or no, still no reason to trust Orlais.

At Ostagar, his opinion is reasonable even if I'd probably disagree with it.
After Ostagar, he should have reconsidered.
By the time of the landsmeet, when even he has finally admitted this is a blight, he's looking crazy.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Eh, why am I going through what has already been discussed to death. I'd much rather go back to my research paper.

Cheers guys.

[Costin_Razvan]

He doesn't have to obey the king. Well, then who has to obey anyone in Ferelden? Someone tell me, then, why the Banns have to obey HIM? Where does he get off using force against people who disobey HIM, when he isn't even the king, and they don't have to obey the king? Please - I don't care how the king is selected, once he is selected, until he dies or os VOTED out of power, he IS the king, and therefore, should be obeyed.

Where is it mentioned anywhere that the Banns have to obey the King? That the Teryns and Arls have to obey the King? I would really like to see any kind of evidence to indicate this.

It is not about the election of the King, but in that the power of the King of must come from his support of the Banns, if he losses that support he losses his throne. In that sense the King is not in a position to have the Banns obey him. He can ask em for military support and if they deem it politically convenient to send such support then they will, if they don't then I can't see what Cailan would be able to do besides rallying his other noble supporters and using military force to sieze the noble who refused to follow orders.

The Bannorn is well known for their FIERCE independence. What do you think would happen if someone wanted to order them around? Civil War.

As for everything else, done to death and I don't care to argue it.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 14 novembre 2010 - 05:13 .

[Morwen Eledhwen]

CalJones wrote...

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

Oh, me too. . .And thick, just to drive the point home. I was like,"Ha! Suck it, gossipmongers!"

[nos_astra]

Persephone wrote...
And I must repeat the question: Where do we learn of missing scouts? The one band overwhelmed close to the camp in the Korcari Wilds?

Fergus Cousland and his men went missing on a scouting missision.

[Wulfram]

klarabella wrote...

Fergus Cousland and his men went missing on a scouting missision.

They weren't expected back until after the battle

[Sarah1281]

klarabella wrote...

Persephone wrote...
And I must repeat the question: Where do we learn of missing scouts? The one band overwhelmed close to the camp in the Korcari Wilds?

Fergus Cousland and his men went missing on a scouting missision.

Cailan: No doubt you wish to see your brother. Unfortunately, he and his men are scouting in the Wilds.
PC: When will he return?
Cailan: Not until the battle is over, I fear. Until then, we cannot even send word.

Admittedly, I don't see the point in having a scouting mission happen where no one bothers to report back and there's no way to communicate with them but there you go. Fergus and company were not missing as far as anyone was aware.

[nos_astra]

Wulfram wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Fergus Cousland and his men went missing on a scouting missision.

They weren't expected back until after the battle.

True. I often forget some of the nonsense that seems too ridiculous for me. The leader of the Highever army is sent on a scouting mission that is going to last until after the battle.

Edit: Oh, Sarah made that point already.

Modifié par klarabella, 14 novembre 2010 - 05:51 .

[Addai]

I interrupt this argument for some gratuitous squee.  Thanks Charsen. 

Modifié par Addai67, 14 novembre 2010 - 05:59 .

[Sarah1281]

klarabella wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Fergus Cousland and his men went missing on a scouting missision.

They weren't expected back until after the battle.

True. I often forget some of the nonsense that seems too ridiculous for me. The leader of the Highever army is sent on a scouting mission that is going to last until after the battle.

Edit: Oh, Sarah made that point already.

Maybe Cailan was worried about Fergus stealing his glory? At least he had expected Highever to be led by Bryce who should have shown up prior to the battle starting but they already knew that Bryce hadn't shown up when expected so...

[Addai]

I just gather that it was a longer scouting mission. Late-game, Riordan says that the darkspawn line was widely spread out. It doesn't make sense, but it's obviously for plot purposes.  Would have been better if they just said Fergus never made it to Ostagar and you're left wondering if Howe got to him.

Modifié par Addai67, 14 novembre 2010 - 06:07 .

[CalJones]

Squeeeee!

Addai - I picked up Natural Bodies, a hairstyle mod, dialogue tweaks and Ejoslin's Zevran files and am just about to visit the Tower of Ishal. Maker help me but I've been running my poor mage around naked and giggling at his todger. I am 43.

[Addai]

CalJones wrote...

Squeeeee!
Addai - I picked up Natural Bodies, a hairstyle mod, dialogue tweaks and Ejoslin's Zevran files and am just about to visit the Tower of Ishal. Maker help me but I've been running my poor mage around naked and giggling at his todger. I am 43.

LOL  We are not alike, then, since I use tmp's underwear proportions fix just so that I can get the hands/ arms/ booty adjustments without all the embarrassing armor changes. 

Other mods I like are Lock Bash, Character Respec (so I can get rid of useless pre-set specs on NPCs or do reboots on my character without restarting), Personal Annoyance Remover to get rid of the haze and sparklies from sustainables and tmp's VFX remover to do the same for weapons, No Helmet Hack so you get the stats from helmets while being able to see everyone's pretty faces, oh and for a mage, Wings of Velvet gives some good equipment.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Question: is there a way to add the underwear models to the Natural Bodies mod configuration, or do I have to uninstall natural bodies to get underwear back?

[CalJones]

I was wondering that. The Theseus body (which I'm using) does have a barbarian thong-type thing as an option. Not sure about the female bodies - I'm sure there are some underwear mods that are compatible. If I get to playing another female character I'm not sure I'm going to want to be waking up in Fort Drakon completely naked.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Yeah, pretty much how I feel. I want to be able to have the option for complete nudity for sexytime, or for some giggletastic fun screenies, but for the most part and in most of the game, I want my skivvies and bra. I know the males have underwear, and I downloaded some decent underwear mods for females, but so far, no options in the NB menu to switch them over, which kinda blows.



I mean, if they have shemale and ****** belt models, one would think they'd throw in some underwear...

[CalJones]

Ha ha yes. I wonder what Alistair would think of that if you put it on to pop his chantry cherry!

Addai - I got the Respec mod. Very useful.

[NuclearSerendipity]

TJPags wrote...

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.

Understandable. I must say, though, that I'm really enjoying this discussion.

I see what you mean, but it doesn't really seems, to me, as an argument to why punishment should be due by principle. I agree that actions must have their consequences, and that crimes shouldn't happen without having any sort of consequences to them; but there's a difference between punishment and consequence, and a difference between punishing because it's good or being good because it's punishment. Like Costin, I believe actions should be taken in order to avoid that some things are done again or even to avoid they are made at all: but on one hand, these actions don't necessarily have to be a form of punishment; on the other hand, even if they are punishment, they are taken not on the basis that punishment is by principle and in itself good, but on the basis that it's what's best in that context in specific. Of course there are laws, and of course there ought to be consequences to disobeying them; but I don't believe one should base the consequences of actions in general on the punishment that is due to them, but rather, on what is due to make the best out of the situation - not in a selfish or "material" manner, but in a "greater good" sense -, for everyone, really. (Not that it's simple, but that's not what's in question: rather, what we're discussing here is a matter of principle). I don't mean that punishment should be abolished altogether: I just mean that it's not always the best solution. Yes,  hypothetically there can be situations where punishment is the best choice; but hypothetically, aswell, there can be situations where it isn't, or at least that the due punishment (in the sense of the due amount of punishment accordingly to the action) isn't, and a lighter one should be given. The way I see it, your argument just provides reasons to accept that sometimes punishment is necessary; not, however, that it's necessary by principle and good in itself, no matter the context in question. Or, to make myself clearer: your argument manages to defend only that punishment shouldn't be dispensed with altogether, but not that it should be necessary in each and every case. Logically speaking, what you say only helps the case of affirming that punishment should exist, but not that it should be universal.

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.

Well, in the case of my character, he didn't see any evidence that Loghain could be any further threat that would require his death at that moment, at the Landsmeet. And since my character - just like myself, obviously - didn't have the same outlook on punishment as you do, he spared Loghain, believing it would be for the best for a number of reasons, one of them precisely being that killing Loghain at that point felt more as an insensible act of retribution than an act aimed at what was best. It felt like an act of punishment for its own sake, no matter how bad it would be, and not punishment for the good it could bring. Thus, it didn't seem like the best to do.  Not that it would be allowed to Loghain to remain on his ruthless path: on the contrary, if there ought not to be a punishment - at least not the due punishment - for his actions, there ought to be consequences to them that would make it so that they wouldn't be repeated, and that, to use a cheesy line, would make Loghain "learn his lesson", that is, not endorse anymore what he had done and act otherwise and accordingly to what was best - that is, fighting and defeating the Blight. 

As for what you said about punishment, I'm not sure that what you are really trying to say is that the likelyhood of someone commiting a crime should determine what is the punishment due to their actions. Seems that what you mean is, rather, that the number of times someone commited a crime should be considered when determining his punishment. I don't really want to take this discussion too far - as it isn't truly the matter at hand - but it seems to me that punishment isn't and shouldn't be based on the likelihood that someone will commit a crime again, in order to determine the "raw" punishment one takes (number of years, execution, etc.). Rather, it should only be based in that likelihood in order to determine the "preventive" punishment (going to rehab, or to a shrink, etc.). Also, being punished more for commiting a number of times a crime instead of only once is different from getting a bigger punishment for your crime each time you do it again. If you make twice a crime that gets you two years in jail, you get four years; it's not the case that at the first time will get you two years and at the second, three, or at least so I think. But truly, I'm no expert; I just think that I didn't fully understand what is for you the role of the likelihood of commiting a crime again in determining the punishment one takes, and the way you said it, it gave me the impression that one should be punished for an action he didn't even do, but is likely to. Or, at least, that one should be punished for being likely to commit a crime again.

Other than that, so much for not discussing Loghain's actions all over again, huh?

Modifié par NuclearSerendipity, 14 novembre 2010 - 11:29 .

[NuclearSerendipity]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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.

I'm curious: what did Anderson do that was so terribly wrong?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

CalJones wrote...

Ha ha yes. I wonder what Alistair would think of that if you put it on to pop his chantry cherry!
.

Now there's an idea for my psychotic blood mage playthrough........

[NuclearSerendipity]

Btw, DragonRacer13 and Persephone, I read your fanfics' last chapters: they're are really good!  It even makes me want to write one myself, even though I'm sure I'd never manage to write anything that fliows as nice and naturally as that.  I thought it was awesome to write from Loghain's perspective, btw. 

[Addai]

Eye-popping new drawing by MaevesChild... Loghain at the DR.



Titled "You'll have to forgive me if I think of my dead wife."  That's a great line, and Morrigan's reply is so typically... Morrigan.

[Addai]

This is another MaevesChild that I hadn't seen before.



Scars