12857 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

You know, I'm getting a headache - as usual - from the Loghain aspect of this thread.  I should never have brought the thread back on topic.  Whatever, I'm gonna throw in the towel - again - and just play my game.

Instead, I'll address this non-Loghain oriented portion:

Costin_Razvan wrote...

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.

So, basically, you're saying that we have a country, with a king that nobody has to obey?  At all?  Unless they feel like it?  So, umm, they don't need to pay taxes if they don't want to?  They don't have to send troops if they don't want to?  They can each make their own little laws if they like?

What you describe is not a country- it's anarchy.  It's warlords ruling their own little portion of land however they choose.  If that's your view of Ferelden, let me say 2 things - first, all those theories you have about conquering the world?  Go for it.  Fits right in with a Ferelden point of view.  Makes me wonder where Maric got off trying to overthrow the Orlesian ruler, and what he thought he was saving, but whatever.  Second, they'd be better off under Orlesian rule.  At least that comes with order, and an established rule.

One final comment - this one @ Addai - when posting future Loghain squee pics, can you make sure you include some where your Warden is visible?  Cuz, ummm, she's hot. 

[Sarah1281]

Second, they'd be better off under Orlesian rule. At least that comes with order, and an established rule.

Between all the commoner-raping, tying peasants to the land, the WORSE Alienage conditions, noble de-landing, 'Game' playing, and free-holder-displacing, I think anarchy might be preferable.

[phaonica]

Addai67 wrote...

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.

Wow. Is that a new pic? I hadn't seen it before. Hot.

[Addai]

TJPags wrote...

One final comment - this one @ Addai - when posting future Loghain squee pics, can you make sure you include some where your Warden is visible?  Cuz, ummm, she's hot. 

Aww, it's very kind of you to say so!    I'm useless with the Character Creator, but I guess she came out alright.

BTW I agree with you that Costin is exaggerating the decentralized aspect of Ferelden.  The teyrns and arls all have to swear fealty to the king, the banns to them, so there is an obligation of loyalty, otherwise the crown would not function at all.  I would just say that the crown's sovereignty is limited by the banns' customary self-rule.  It's not federalism as we know it.  For instance, Cailan relies on his men actually bringing their armies-  I imagine like most medieval states he has few standing armies under his own command.

[phaonica]

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.

I'm kind of backtracking and trying to catch up to this conversation, but I wanted to ask something, just out of curiosity. What did you do with that guy who stole from the king in Awakening? Does punishment in principle demand that he be hanged?

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

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.

I'm kind of backtracking and trying to catch up to this conversation, but I wanted to ask something, just out of curiosity. What did you do with that guy who stole from the king in Awakening? Does punishment in principle demand that he be hanged?

I made him join the army. 

He stole bread because his family was starving, and he couldn't find work.  So, I gave him work, he'll earn money, but he gives up living with his family, and he may get killed on campaign.  For such a small crime as that, I felt this was fair.

Edit:

Addai67 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

One final comment - this one @ Addai - when posting future Loghain squee pics, can you make sure you include some where your Warden is visible?  Cuz, ummm, she's hot. 

Aww, it's very kind of you to say so!    I'm useless with the Character Creator, but I guess she came out alright.

BTW I agree with you that Costin is exaggerating the decentralized aspect of Ferelden.  The teyrns and arls all have to swear fealty to the king, the banns to them, so there is an obligation of loyalty, otherwise the crown would not function at all.  I would just say that the crown's sovereignty is limited by the banns' customary self-rule.  It's not federalism as we know it.  For instance, Cailan relies on his men actually bringing their armies-  I imagine like most medieval states he has few standing armies under his own command.

I assumed that.  Most medieval countries had limited standing armies in actual history - standing armies are EXPENSIVE.  Kings did absolutely rely on lesser nobles to supply men, who in turn relied on nobles sworn to them, etc.

While the whole formal vote for a king thing is a bit unusual, I doubt it goes so far as to eliminate common things such as oaths of fealty, etc.  In fact, I think I remember a scene in TST where nobles did, in fact, swear allegiance to Maric.

And I don't know about your Character Creator skills, but you did fine with her. 

Modifié par TJPags, 15 novembre 2010 - 01:34 .

[Sarah1281]

He doesn't give up living with his family, he brings them to the Keep, right?

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

I made him join the army. 

He stole bread because his family was starving, and he couldn't find work.  So, I gave him work, he'll earn money, but he gives up living with his family, and he may get killed on campaign.  For such a small crime as that, I felt this was fair.

Okay, so you still see it as punishment, but a punishment reduced because of his motivations. What if your only options were to hang him or let him go free and unpunished? Would you hang him because he *must* be punished for committing a crime? I guess that's how I see the dilemma with executing Loghain. I don't find that his crimes are severe enough for execution and I'm not going to choose execution because he *must* be punished. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I get the impression that for you Loghain's motivations aren't enough to reduce his sentence.

Modifié par phaonica, 15 novembre 2010 - 01:46 .

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

I made him join the army. 

He stole bread because his family was starving, and he couldn't find work.  So, I gave him work, he'll earn money, but he gives up living with his family, and he may get killed on campaign.  For such a small crime as that, I felt this was fair.

Okay, so you still see it as punishment, but a punishment reduced because of his motivations. What if your only options were to hang him or let him go free and unpunished? Would you hang him because he *must* be punished for committing a crime? I guess that's how I see the dilemma with executing Loghain. I don't find that his crimes are severe enough for execution and I'm not going to choose execution because he *must* be punished. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I get the impression that for you Loghain's motivations aren't enough to reduce his sentence.

Well, I'm not sure I'd go with a punishment I feel is way to strong just because the other option is slightly too light.  In the scenario you gave me, he'd walk.  I'm not going to hang a man for stealing a loaf of bread, no matter his motivations.  Well, unless there was some kind of insane famine going on, and his stealing that loaf of bread meant several other people starved to death.

But no, with Loghain, the main problem is, we don't SEE his motivations until AFTER we decide what to do with him.  He has a chance to explain when he first gets back to Denerim, and the nobles are gathered, yet he doesn't.  He has a chance to explain during the final Landsmeet, yet he first persists in claiming the Warden is acting on behalf of Orlais, etc, and then simply claims that what he did was "for Ferelden".  He doesn't explain himself, unlike that guy in Awakening, who says flat out - yes, I did it, but my family is starving, I can't find work, we needed to eat, and I didn't steal from someone who was starving.  So Loghain doesn't give me the chance to mitigate his punishment.

@ sarah - his family may go live in the keep, but does he?  I send troops out to guard the roads - he may be there.  That's the "losing part of his freedom" part of the punishment.

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

Well, I'm not sure I'd go with a punishment I feel is way to strong just because the other option is slightly too light.  In the scenario you gave me, he'd walk.  I'm not going to hang a man for stealing a loaf of bread, no matter his motivations.  Well, unless there was some kind of insane famine going on, and his stealing that loaf of bread meant several other people starved to death.

Waitasecond, the law the guy broke was something like stealing from the crown, for which the traditional punishment is a hanging. Are you saying you'd *never* carry out this justice? What happened to obeying the king?

But no, with Loghain, the main problem is, we don't SEE his motivations until AFTER we decide what to do with him.  He has a chance to explain when he first gets back to Denerim, and the nobles are gathered, yet he doesn't.  He has a chance to explain during the final Landsmeet, yet he first persists in claiming the Warden is acting on behalf of Orlais, etc, and then simply claims that what he did was "for Ferelden".  He doesn't explain himself, unlike that guy in Awakening, who says flat out - yes, I did it, but my family is starving, I can't find work, we needed to eat, and I didn't steal from someone who was starving.  So Loghain doesn't give me the chance to mitigate his punishment.

So because you don't know his motivations, you assume they will not be enough to justify a reduced punishment? I suppose I can kind of see that (considering my Warden's actions in WH). In Loghain's case, I suppose I judged his potential motivations based on what I'd seen and heard of his character. I thought that chances were high that he really did care about Ferelden and that it was possible that he had good reasons for what he had done. I didn't *know* his motivations, but I didn't see a high risk in letting him live.

[Sarah1281]

I thought the guy didn't steal from the king but rather from you which is why you're the one dealing out his punishment.

[phaonica]

the wiki says: "Enter the throne room and speak to Varel. He will tell you that you have the right to high justice in your lands and you must decide the punishment in some cases or the law in others...Alec is a shepherd who stole two bushels of grain from the crown. He claims he had no choice since his family was starving. Traditionally, he should hang."

So he seems to have stolen from the crown, and you have the authority to execute him on behalf of the king.

Edit: Although, rereading that again, it appears to say you can decide the punishment and in some cases the law, so hanging him seems to be a suggestion and not an order.

Modifié par phaonica, 15 novembre 2010 - 02:52 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Crime and punishment should fit one another. While some might think stealing from the king is a major crime deserving death, I personally don't. Thus, a flogging seems sufficient. A starving man stealing to feed his family, however, is even more a minor crime in my opinion. The man had lost his food supply to the darkspawn and bandits. The state failed to do it's job: creating an environment condusive to industry and self sufficiency. Thus, conscription in the army seems a fair enough punishment given the circumstances.



One must always take into account mitigating circumstances in terms of crime and punishment, otherwise, you don't really have much justice. As well as balancing the punishment with the severity and consequences of the crime.

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Well, I'm not sure I'd go with a punishment I feel is way to strong just because the other option is slightly too light.  In the scenario you gave me, he'd walk.  I'm not going to hang a man for stealing a loaf of bread, no matter his motivations.  Well, unless there was some kind of insane famine going on, and his stealing that loaf of bread meant several other people starved to death.

Waitasecond, the law the guy broke was something like stealing from the crown, for which the traditional punishment is a hanging. Are you saying you'd *never* carry out this justice? What happened to obeying the king?

But no, with Loghain, the main problem is, we don't SEE his motivations until AFTER we decide what to do with him.  He has a chance to explain when he first gets back to Denerim, and the nobles are gathered, yet he doesn't.  He has a chance to explain during the final Landsmeet, yet he first persists in claiming the Warden is acting on behalf of Orlais, etc, and then simply claims that what he did was "for Ferelden".  He doesn't explain himself, unlike that guy in Awakening, who says flat out - yes, I did it, but my family is starving, I can't find work, we needed to eat, and I didn't steal from someone who was starving.  So Loghain doesn't give me the chance to mitigate his punishment.

So because you don't know his motivations, you assume they will not be enough to justify a reduced punishment? I suppose I can kind of see that (considering my Warden's actions in WH). In Loghain's case, I suppose I judged his potential motivations based on what I'd seen and heard of his character. I thought that chances were high that he really did care about Ferelden and that it was possible that he had good reasons for what he had done. I didn't *know* his motivations, but I didn't see a high risk in letting him live.

To the first - he stole bread - or wheat (I saw the subsequent post, but didn't quote it - also, been a while since I played Awakening).  We're talking shoplifting here.  The equivalent - to me - of stealing a dessert spoon from the White House, or a second dessert from Buckingham Palace.  Hang a man for that?  No.  It's not so much who he stole from - so long as, like I said before, we're not talking about some crazy famine where that loaf of bread was all a family had to eat for a week - as what he stole.  A loaf of bread, or bushel or 2 of wheat.  That's not worth a life, to me.

To the second - All I knew about his motivations, when I first played, was what we see in game.  No place in game does he explain why he retreated at Ostagar, why he poisoned Eamon, why he didn't keep a closer watch on Howe - in fact, in that regard, Anora tells us Howe suggested killing her, and Loghain seemingly did nothing to him, why Loghain felt it was okay to finance a war against his own people by selling others of his own people into slavery, etc.  He NEVER explains himself. 

He has at least two opportunities to do so, from what I see - when he returns to Denerim, and at at Landsmeet.  At the first chance, he claims - falsely - that the Grey Wardens conspired to kill Caillan and/or allow the battle to be lost.  At the second, he essentially claims that the PC is an Orlesian spy - again, falsely. 

I look at someone covering up his actions with lies, and covering up one lie with another, and I think there's even more wrong than what I know.  He gives me nothing to mitigate what I think are capital crimes.  If he had, well, then we could talk.
Last note - I did agree, once, that certain of my wardens would be happier imprisoning him than killing him.  But we're talking imprisonment for life rather than a death sentence, not a slap on the wrist 30 day sentence or anything.  So even they were much closer to executing him than to allowing him to go free as a Warden.

[phaonica]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

One must always take into account mitigating circumstances in terms of crime and punishment, otherwise, you don't really have much justice. As well as balancing the punishment with the severity and consequences of the crime.

I agree. But what if you are only presented with a 'crime' and not it's motivations? Do you judge on the crime alone, or can you still base your judgments on what you *think* their motivations *might* be and adjust their 'punishment' accordingly?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

phaonica wrote...


I agree. But what if you are only presented with a 'crime' and not it's motivations? Do you judge on the crime alone, or can you still base your judgments on what you *think* their motivations *might* be and adjust their 'punishment' accordingly?

If no motivations are given or apparant, then I'm left with the crime, and the consequences and aftermath of said crime. Speculating on motives without anything but my own prejudice to go by would not be fair. So, if the accused wishes to add nothing coherant or useable for their defense, than I shall look at the crime in context of it's aftermath and legacy, and decide punishment. Which punishment fits the situation and the overall goals I have, as a whole.

[TJPags]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

phaonica wrote...


I agree. But what if you are only presented with a 'crime' and not it's motivations? Do you judge on the crime alone, or can you still base your judgments on what you *think* their motivations *might* be and adjust their 'punishment' accordingly?

If no motivations are given or apparant, then I'm left with the crime, and the consequences and aftermath of said crime. Speculating on motives without anything but my own prejudice to go by would not be fair. So, if the accused wishes to add nothing coherant or useable for their defense, than I shall look at the crime in context of it's aftermath and legacy, and decide punishment. Which punishment fits the situation and the overall goals I have, as a whole.

This says it very well.  If someone doesn't want to come forward and explain why they did what they did, you're kind of stuck looking at what they did, how they did it, what they did before it - is there evidence they planned it? - ands what they did after - did they express regret?  did they revel in it? - as the only things to use.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
This says it very well.  If someone doesn't want to come forward and explain why they did what they did, you're kind of stuck looking at what they did, how they did it, what they did before it - is there evidence they planned it? - ands what they did after - did they express regret?  did they revel in it? - as the only things to use.

But Loghain does, that's the whole point of the Landsmeet. He explains himself and his actions when he is accused, including Ostagar and Cailan. It's up to you to determine whether what he is saying is convincing or not.

[Persephone]

Addai67 wrote...

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

*Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh* Lovely.

Modifié par Persephone, 15 novembre 2010 - 03:47 .

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
This says it very well.  If someone doesn't want to come forward and explain why they did what they did, you're kind of stuck looking at what they did, how they did it, what they did before it - is there evidence they planned it? - ands what they did after - did they express regret?  did they revel in it? - as the only things to use.

But Loghain does, that's the whole point of the Landsmeet. He explains himself and his actions when he is accused, including Ostagar and Cailan. It's up to you to determine whether what he is saying is convincing or not.

Wait.  I know I haven't finished a game in a while - been doing origin runs, etc - but when does he explain himself?  As I don't have the PC version, I can't see the dialogue here.  But my recollection is, he claims Caillan couldn't be saved, claims he needed to sell elves into slavery to finance the civil war, and claims everything he did, he did for Ferelden.  Where, in that, does he explain poisoning Eamon, the mistakes at Ostagar, his seizure of power, his fighting a civil war during a darkspawn invasion - whether it's a Blight or not - and his focus on Orlais when they've done nothing up to that point to merit suspicion?

[Persephone]

NuclearSerendipity wrote...

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. 

WOW, thank you. *Blushes* Glad you like my story.

[Sarah1281]

his fighting a civil war during a darkspawn invasion

That can't be blamed solely on him. The bannorn is just as responsible for fighting during a darkspawn invasion as he is.

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...
To the first - he stole bread - or wheat (I saw the subsequent post, but didn't quote it - also, been a while since I played Awakening).  We're talking shoplifting here.  The equivalent - to me - of stealing a dessert spoon from the White House, or a second dessert from Buckingham Palace.  Hang a man for that?  No.  It's not so much who he stole from - so long as, like I said before, we're not talking about some crazy famine where that loaf of bread was all a family had to eat for a week - as what he stole.  A loaf of bread, or bushel or 2 of wheat.  That's not worth a life, to me.

Fair enough. I thought that you were saying that breaking a law demanded punishment, therefore if your choices were no punishment or too-severe punishment, that lawbreaking necessitates punishment, no matter the circumstances.

To the second - All I knew about his motivations, when I first played, was what we see in game.  No place in game does he explain why he retreated at Ostagar, why he poisoned Eamon, why he didn't keep a closer watch on Howe - in fact, in that regard, Anora tells us Howe suggested killing her, and Loghain seemingly did nothing to him, why Loghain felt it was okay to finance a war against his own people by selling others of his own people into slavery, etc.  He NEVER explains himself. 

No, he doesn't explain all that stuff (at least, not in a candid, non-political, not-in-front-of-the-Landsmeet way). I know his actions, but not his motivations. The retreat at Ostagar was an action, not a motivation. Poisoning Eamon was an action, not a motivation. Etc. There are other actions of his to consider. I know he was considered a hero at River Dane. I know he was instrumental in helping take Ferelden's independance back from Orlais. I know that he earned the close friendship and confidence of the former king Maric, who was also referred to as a hero and a savior. I know that up until his retreat at Ostagar, that he was generally well respected and trusted, and that he had a history of doing right by Ferelden, whatever his motivations for that were. For all that I didn't know why , he had a history of doing things to help Ferelden, and it was possible that he had a good reason or motivation for what he had done at Ostagar and after.

Modifié par phaonica, 15 novembre 2010 - 03:56 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
  But my recollection is, he claims Caillan couldn't be saved,

In otherwords, the battle was lost. You choose to believe him or not.

TJPags wrote...
claims he needed to sell elves into slavery to finance the civil war,

To finance the whole war effort, he did not specify the civil war, he was in fact winning militarily.

TJPags wrote...
and claims everything he did, he did for Ferelden. 

That's his motivation. You choose to believe whether that's true or not, or whether that earns your sympathy or not.

TJPags wrote...
the mistakes at Ostagar,

You don't accuse him of what you percieve to be mistakes at the Landsmeet. So why should he explain himself about something you don't accuse him of?

TJPags wrote...
his seizure of power,

Goes back to his main motivation. And you don't accuse him of that in the Landsmeet for him to explain himself.

That for me was his biggest mistake.
His "I wanted to protect you from this" to Anora however, can be seen as another reason why he did what he did. At least that's how I interpret it.

TJPags wrote...
his fighting a civil war during a darkspawn invasion - whether it's a Blight or not -

Ask the bannorn and Teagan. They are as guilty.

TJPags wrote...
and his focus on Orlais when they've done nothing up to that point to merit suspicion?

In your opinion, they don't merit it. For him, it does.
You choose to agree with him, slightly agree with him, or disagree with him completely.

Orlais being a superpower and an Empire, with bad history with Ferelden, by default merits suspicion.
If you did RtO before the Landsmeet, you can also be suspcious, but I know that's not how you personally see it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 novembre 2010 - 04:03 .

[Persephone]

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
This says it very well.  If someone doesn't want to come forward and explain why they did what they did, you're kind of stuck looking at what they did, how they did it, what they did before it - is there evidence they planned it? - ands what they did after - did they express regret?  did they revel in it? - as the only things to use.

But Loghain does, that's the whole point of the Landsmeet. He explains himself and his actions when he is accused, including Ostagar and Cailan. It's up to you to determine whether what he is saying is convincing or not.

Wait.  I know I haven't finished a game in a while - been doing origin runs, etc - but when does he explain himself?  As I don't have the PC version, I can't see the dialogue here.  But my recollection is, he claims Caillan couldn't be saved, claims he needed to sell elves into slavery to finance the civil war, and claims everything he did, he did for Ferelden.  Where, in that, does he explain poisoning Eamon, the mistakes at Ostagar, his seizure of power, his fighting a civil war during a darkspawn invasion - whether it's a Blight or not - and his focus on Orlais when they've done nothing up to that point to merit suspicion?

Cailan could not be saved. Never disagreed with him there as the fool was nearly too stupid to breathe.

Claiming that war is cruel and that he has regrets for the elves.... It is an explanation. It may not be what YOU want to hear. But it isn't met with much opposition.

Everything he did he DID do for Ferelden.

I personally don't care he poisoned Eamon. The man plotted against his queen. Too bad my Warden is stuck with the hypocrite.

Mistakes at Ostagar....I don't see many and see his retreat as the only tactical option that made sense. Cailan made his own decision to fight on the front lines and his poor leadership bears as much responsibility as Loghain. Just because the fool got himself killed, does that mean he is absolved from his idiocy? 

Chevaliers (Twice as more as at the battle of River Dane!!!) amassing at the borders are as suspicious as it gets.