12857 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Do the reasons matter when he did it? (Aside from the raping of women)

To the people who were victims of his policies, the reasons matter not. When someone is selling your neighbors into slavery, or taxing the crap out of you when you can barely afford it, whether they are doing it for their own benefit, or some belief in some greater good, in the end, that they do it is all that matters.

Of course they do.
What will you be more accepting of. Extra taxes when your country is at war, or when it's at peace?
And no one hardly cares about the city elves to call them "neighbours".

To say that repression in a time of genuine national emergency is the exact same as repression in a time of peace with no genuine security concern, is simply innacurate and missing half the picture, even if they share similar methods.

Of course the masses, being incapable of looking beyond their own nose, might complain like they always do. That does not dismiss the importance of the context and the reasons why such policies were taken, and looking at what they feel  solely as a way to objectively understand the issue is faulty by default, they will not provide an objective pov.

A war Loghain himself helped in the creation of. Against a percieved threat that was minor, compared to the actual threat. Loghain can justify whatever reasons he thinks he needs. It does not change the fact that the end result is the same.

This is not relevent to this particular issue.

So you are saying that if Loghain was completely right in everything he did and that he made no mistakes at all (aka the Orlesians were invading and he did try his best to convince the bannorn but they refuse), he would be justified to use the exact same methods?

The best? No, the best is to root out the conspiracy with the help of the Dark Wolf. The nobles learn you can play their games better are more dangerously. Esmerelle kills herself, "accidents" happen. Conspirators foiled, and your Warden's image unblemished. Sure, taking hostages might make the conspirators back off, but it punishes non-conspirators as well, not maiing people very happy, making you look like a Tyrant.

To foil the conspiracy personally, you are exposing yourself at risk. Loghain is not going to travel the bannorn to deal with conspirators like this.
The easiest and one of the most efficient, is taking hostages and keeping the nobles in line and it works, regardless of what they might think.

Minus the violation of women, as I said before, the motives don't matter, the end result does.

I could kick some poor guy's head in that's laying on the sidewalk in front of me, and I could claim any sort of reason, even for his own good, as opposed to doing it for my own amusement. I doubt my reasons mean much to the guy getting his head kicked in. He probably is wishing I'd just stop.

So imagine I push someone out of the way and break his arm.
Are you saying that doing it to save his life from a car, and doing it for my own amusement, is the exact same and my reasons don't matter at all?

Let's say I turned out to be wrong and that the car was not trying to run him over and I still break his arm trying to save him from a threat that as it turns out, did not exist like I thought. Is it the exact same thing as me just doing it for my own amusement?

Sure, the guy might be pissed off anyways. And to him, my motives may not matter.
In reality, objectively speaking, do they really not matter however?
I would find that an extremily lacking position to take when judging actions.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 novembre 2010 - 12:03 .

[phaonica]

If those 'victims' don't care what the reason is, if they are claiming "I was wronged" and they don't care what the explanation is, I find that to be self-centered (not selfish, but self-centered) and I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy.

[KnightofPhoenix]

phaonica wrote...

If those 'victims' don't care what the reason is, if they are claiming "I was wronged" and they don't care what the explanation is, I find that to be self-centered (not selfish, but self-centered) and I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy.

It's certainly understandable,  especially if they've suffered a lot. What they feel about it however does not make whatever improbable comparisions they can come up with true.  Nor does it make their dimissal of other factors pertinent. 

Had people said "Fereldens might percieve Loghain as no different than Orlesians", then that's a statement I might accept (even if we have no real evidence that most of them thought this). But I feel that to state in absolute that Loghain was becoming like the Orlesians, for simply using tactics that are generally universal especially in a time of crisis, is just missing at least half the picture.

I've personally delt with a lot of people who did suffer through a lot (refugees or offsprings of refugees) and they usually make unreasonable and innacurate comparisions, and they dimiss quite a bit of factors that ae essential in understanding. Of course I wasn't an A-hole and I didn't start lecturing them on why they are wrong.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 novembre 2010 - 12:44 .

[Addai]

 

I'm not convinced to judge any of his actions as insane. Desperate, maybe, but not insane. Unless we're using that word differently, or unless, by these same standards, Cailan is insane for making epic fail decisions trying to become a legend. To me, 'insane' requires a severe disconnect from reality, and I don't find Loghain's paranoia or mistrust to be so misplaced that I perceive it as a disconnect from reality.

 
(husband)

Well as I said before to Phoenix pages ago, his behavior if it occured in the modern military would have got him a "section 8" for being mentally unfit based on how that was applied back when the US military used that standard.

He is clearly suffering from impaired judgement based on his past baggage.   Once the losses of Ostagar, Lothering all the various raids etc. began adding up it would have eventually been the duty of people like Howe, and Ser Cauthrien to relieve him of duty pending a mental health review if this had happened in present times.


Really... to not do this is like following victim to the Milgram experiment!


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Modifié par Addai67, 19 novembre 2010 - 01:00 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Eeeh, if we take all origins, the Warden he/herself can be mentally ill or carry too much baggage to be considered fit in that case.

In the whole of Ferelden, probably no one was really fit to do it.

Loghain's judgment is impaired yes, partially due to his past, in addition to political realities and yes, he was not completely mentally fit for the job, especially since he refuses to even contemplate Orlesian reinforcements. That does not make him insane, or mentally unstable however. Unsuitable for the task, maybe. So would most NPCs and companions really, considering what kind of crowd we attract.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 novembre 2010 - 01:02 .

[TJPags]

Jumping in here on a few points.

1.  Maric and his Chantry attack and displaying of heads - yea, that was way over the top.  Defiling a Chantry for political expedience?  Displaying heads, just like the Orlesian 'usurper' did?  People railed against that, and then Maric does it?  Way over the top.  And the Chantry attack - that really bothered me, and I'm not even religious.

2.  Skadi makes excellent points on the slavery/taxing/conscription issues.  The motives don't matter one bit to the person being enslaved/taxed/cponscripted, nor to their families.  Orlesians did it - in popular opinion, I guess - for kicks.  Frankly, I doubt that - I think they did it for what they thought was good reasons.  Loghain thought he had good reasons too - yet the result was the same.  And his motives don't make it any better.

3.  Loghain was the only one to see them through the Blight?  Why?  How?  Anora had been running the country, from what we hear, for 5 years, and doing fine.  What makes Loghain qualified to do so?  He's a general, and some people think he's a great one (I have my doubts, but let's go with that).  That doesn't make him a good ruler.  Look at his actions in TST - nice general, not so good political guy - killing people during meetings is not exactly the best form of diplomacy. Loghain is a hammer, and sees everything as a nail - you can't rule that way.

4.  Finally, desperation is not an excuse at all.  I'm desperate for food, so I steal yours.  Is that okay?  I'm desperate for money, so I rob a bank, and shoot someone in the process.  I'm desperate to escape a homicidal maniac, so I hop in a car and run someone over.  Are those things okay?  Remember, the state the country was in, Loghain had a hand in that - a big one.  He commanded a battle that went horribly wrong (and someone suggested he sacrificed half the army just to get rid of Cailan or something - really?  And that's a good thing????).  He poisoned an influential and respected noble, either to kill him or get him out of the way, during a crisis.  he promoted, honored and relied on a man who slaughtered another noble family, and all their retainers, and also threatened to kill his own daughter.  he fought his own people who just didn't want him telling them what to do (and remember, people here have argued that they don't even HAVE to listen to the king, so what did they do wrong?)  He sold people into slavery to finance this.  Because desperate times call for that?  Let's see how you all feel if your government raises your taxes, sells your neighbor into slavery, or conscripts you or your kid into the army just because it's "desperate".  You'd be okay with that?

Perhaps he's not clinically insane,  I sure think he's pretty paranoid, or obsessed, or whatever.  he sure made a ton of mistakes, without much in the way of explanation.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Eeeh, if we take all origins, the Warden he/herself can be mentally ill or carry too much baggage to be considered fit in that case.
In the whole of Ferelden, probably no one was really fit to do it.
Loghain's judgment is impaired yes, partially due to his past, in addition to political realities and yes, he was not completely mentally fit for the job, especially since he refuses to even contemplate Orlesian reinforcements. That does not make him insane, or mentally unstable however. Unsuitable for the task, maybe. So would most NPCs and companions really, considering what kind of crowd we attract.

(husband)

Yes but its the last part I edited in.   It's the Milgram experiment about who has the authority and who is acting in the state of agency.   Loghain is driving the country off a cliff.   Howe, Anora, and even Cauthrien know it they just can't quite bring themselves to take the necessary step. (Ok Anora eventually does but you get my point)

Modifié par Addai67, 19 novembre 2010 - 01:07 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
2.  Skadi makes excellent points on the slavery/taxing/conscription issues.  The motives don't matter one bit to the person being enslaved/taxed/cponscripted, nor to their families.  Orlesians did it - in popular opinion, I guess - for kicks.  Frankly, I doubt that - I think they did it for what they thought was good reasons.  Loghain thought he had good reasons too - yet the result was the same.  And his motives don't make it any better.

To the victims, sure (barring the fact I see no evidence of Fereldens comparing Loghain to Orlesians).

That however, has little to do with objectively seeing what he was doing and why.
Judging an act, only by looking at how the victim feels, is for me extremily lacking.

As such, I find the comparision with Orlais faulty. No, Orlais did not do it for the lulz. But it's obvious that the context in which they ruled Ferelden, was radically different than the context in which Loghain ruled. They were not experiencing an existential threat. Giving their men the right to rape at will, is certainly not for emergency or even national interests other than keeping the Chevaliers happy and feeling privileged. Unreasonable taxation in the time of peace is not the same in a time of war...etc etc.

Even the victims are not so blind that they can't notice the difference in context. And even if they do, that doesn't make their dimissal of key factors pertinent.

[Sarah1281]

I'm desperate for food, so I steal yours. Is that okay?

If you're starving and the other guy isn't, it's understandable.

and also threatened to kill his own daughter.

Did not. And when Howe brought it up Loghain rejected that idea.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

(husband)

Yes but its the last part I edited in.   It's the Milgram experiment about who has the authority and who is acting in the state of agency.   Loghain is driving the country off a cliff.   Howe, Anora, and even Cauthrien know it they just can't quite bring themselves to take the necessary step. (Ok Anora eventually does but you get my point)

Sure, ok.
That doesn't make Loghain insane, which was the original point you were addressing, no?

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...

If those 'victims' don't care what the reason is, if they are claiming "I was wronged" and they don't care what the explanation is, I find that to be self-centered (not selfish, but self-centered) and I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy.

It's certainly understandable,  especially if they've suffered a lot. What they feel about it however does not make whatever improbable comparisions they can come up with true.  Nor does it make their dimissal of other factors pertinent. 

Understandable, yes. I just can't help but also view this in the perspective of the Warden's 'victims.' What if you preserve the Anvil and that goes wrong. The victims don't care about why you did it. What about if you side with Harrowmont and contribute to the decline of the dwarves? What about leaving Amaranthine to burn? The victims don't care why you did it. If this means I should always think "What about the victims?", well is this not potentially what I"m already doing? Trying to keep the largest group of people alive?

I've personally delt with a lot of people who did suffer through a lot (refugees or offsprings of refugees) and they usually make unreasonable and innacurate comparisions, and they dimiss quite a bit of factors that ae essential in understanding. Of course I wasn't an A-hole and I didn't start lecturing them on why they are wrong.

I mean, I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a real victim, or that people are just whining, or that their attitude isn't understandable. That doesn't mean that their perception of the truth isn't more than a little biased, or ignorant, or something. If they have no care at all for the facts, or for considering a different perspective, I have a hard time sympathizing.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
 Because desperate times call for that?  Let's see how you all feel if your government raises your taxes, sells your neighbor into slavery, or conscripts you or your kid into the army just because it's "desperate".  You'd be okay with that?

Yes.
For a period of time (6 years), the regime in my country was incredibly repressive and outright brutal. Yet the majority of us supported it still, because our own very recent history and the context we were in demanded repression. Or at least, made us tolerate it. I wasn't born yet, but my parents were, my grandparents were...etc, and they all supported the regime.
And looking at it objectively now, I can say I would have supported the regime back then. 

Because we, as they said, prefered "one month of brutal repression over 10 years of anarchy", as our country experienced before that particular regime and right when a neigbhouring country was experiencing anarchy and civil war.

So yes. I think it's grossly underestimated what people are wiling to tolerate in desperate times.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 novembre 2010 - 01:20 .

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I'm desperate for food, so I steal yours. Is that okay?

If you're starving and the other guy isn't, it's understandable.

and also threatened to kill his own daughter.

Did not. And when Howe brought it up Loghain rejected that idea.

No no - I meant Howe - the man Loghain gave honors to  - suggested it, and Loghain did nothing except say "no".  Me, I'd have been a little more annoyed than that.

[Costin_Razvan]

[quoote] So yes. I think it';s gorssly underestimated what people are wiling to toelrate in desperate times. [/quote]

Pretty much this. In my country the person who is considered the 6th greatest leader in our entire history was Ion Antonescu, a dictator who supposedly participated in the Holocaust in Romanian ( though I dispute this ) and who led Romania to fight along side the Axis in WW2.

The 11th was Ceausescu, who also led us for over two decades and was quite a ruthless bastard but still today a lot of people feel it was a grave mistake for the us to kill him in the Revolution, Compared to our current government he actually did ****.

So surprisingly, dictators can be supported quite well by a large part of the population.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 19 novembre 2010 - 01:31 .

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
2.  Skadi makes excellent points on the slavery/taxing/conscription issues.  The motives don't matter one bit to the person being enslaved/taxed/cponscripted, nor to their families.  Orlesians did it - in popular opinion, I guess - for kicks.  Frankly, I doubt that - I think they did it for what they thought was good reasons.  Loghain thought he had good reasons too - yet the result was the same.  And his motives don't make it any better.

To the victims, sure (barring the fact I see no evidence of Fereldens comparing Loghain to Orlesians).

That however, has little to do with objectively seeing what he was doing and why.
Judging an act, only by looking at how the victim feels, is for me extremily lacking.

As such, I find the comparision with Orlais faulty. No, Orlais did not do it for the lulz. But it's obvious that the context in which they ruled Ferelden, was radically different than the context in which Loghain ruled. They were not experiencing an existential threat. Giving their men the right to rape at will, is certainly not for emergency or even national interests other than keeping the Chevaliers happy and feeling privileged. Unreasonable taxation in the time of peace is not the same in a time of war...etc etc.

Even the victims are not so blind that they can't notice the difference in context. And even if they do, that doesn't make their dimissal of key factors pertinent.

You're making a mistake.  Judging motives is not objective.  Motives are, practically by definition, subjective.

Objective - Loghain taxed/enslaved/conscripted people.

Subjective - they hate it.  He thought he had good reason, and it was necessary.

Does it make it right?  See below:

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
 Because desperate times call for that?  Let's see how you all feel if your government raises your taxes, sells your neighbor into slavery, or conscripts you or your kid into the army just because it's "desperate".  You'd be okay with that?

Yes.
For a period of time (6 years), the regime in my country was incredibly repressive and outright brutal. Yet the majority of us supported it still, because our own very recent history and the context we were in demanded repression. Or at least, made us tolerate it. I wasn't born yet, but my parents were, my grandparents were...etc, and they all supported the regime.
And looking at it objectively now, I can say I would have supported the regime back then. 

Because we, as they said, prefered "one month of brutal repression over 10 years of anarchy", as our country experienced before that particular regime and right when a neigbhouring country was experiencing anarchy and civil war.

So yes. I think it's grossly underestimated what people are wiling to tolerate in desperate times.

That's your view, and that of your parents.  I shudder to think what they dealt with, and would prefer this move from the personal to the hypothetical, if you don't mind.

While some may accept it, Ferelden fought for the right to be free from those things - and had spent 30 or so years without them.  Frankly, I'd think they'd be outraged.  People used to living without such things, suddenly subjected to them, are not just going to accept it.  The occupation ended 30 years ago - most adults in Ferelden today were not born yet, or young children at that time.  Even Eamon was in his teens, Loghain perhaps his early 20's.  I'm not sure they'd be so accepting of it, nor should they be.

Keep in mind - while you say, look at the motives of the person doing it - which is valid in many instances - you seem to dismiss the reaction of those faced with it - isn't that just as valid?  And are there some things which are wrong, no matter your motives?

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

(husband)

Yes but its the last part I edited in.   It's the Milgram experiment about who has the authority and who is acting in the state of agency.   Loghain is driving the country off a cliff.   Howe, Anora, and even Cauthrien know it they just can't quite bring themselves to take the necessary step. (Ok Anora eventually does but you get my point)

Sure, ok.
That doesn't make Loghain insane, which was the original point you were addressing, no?

(husband)

It is the precise reason why the section 8 is so important.    I would still stand by the Section 8, which means his fitness of command should be officially questioned and he should be temporarily relieved of duty pending an evaluation.

And yes that is kind of like the colloquial use of that term.   The real term itself is a legal definition refering to whether or not a person is mentally fit to stand trial (he/she can see "reality" and knows the difference between right and wrong).

Modifié par Addai67, 19 novembre 2010 - 01:34 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
You're making a mistake.  Judging motives is not objective.  Motives are, practically by definition, subjective.

Objective - Loghain taxed/enslaved/conscripted people.
Subjective - they hate it.  He thought he had good reason, and it was necessary.

It's different. Because you are judging one who is active, vs one who is passive and "receptive".
When trying to judge why one acted the way he did, understanding the context (which is objective), can lead us to understand the motives (which is subjective). Both are to me important, but the context is more so.

However, here we are judging the one making the act.
But even if we aren't and judge the act alone, regardless of the actor. I would still find it lacking to completely ignore the context, regional particularities...etc.

While some may accept it, Ferelden fought for the right to be free from those things - and had spent 30 or so years without them.  Frankly, I'd think they'd be outraged.  People used to living without such things, suddenly subjected to them, are not just going to accept it.  The occupation ended 30 years ago - most adults in Ferelden today were not born yet, or young children at that time.  Even Eamon was in his teens, Loghain perhaps his early 20's.  I'm not sure they'd be so accepting of it, nor should they be.

Keep in mind - while you say, look at the motives of the person doing it - which is valid in many instances - you seem to dismiss the reaction of those faced with it - isn't that just as valid?  And are there some things which are wrong, no matter your motives?

No, I don't believe anything is "wrong" in absolute. Some things are just much harder to be justified, imo, because some acts have extremily limited to no use at all and are eaqsily replaceable (rape comes to mind. I can only justify it in hypotheticals that are weird. Like if the only way to defend against an alien genocidal campaign is to rape them, which would somehow save us).

And as explained above, when judging an act, the actor is more important than the victim, imo, when trying to understand the act itself.

Also, like I said, it's a different context and if the people of Ferelden fail to see it because they are short sighted, I do not feel obligated to share their belief. Over-taxation in war is not the same as over-taxation in peace, even if the victims are just as angered.

My focus is primarily on the context. From it, motives can be ascertained, but the context of the act is more important. And ultimately, whether I judge the act justified or not is going to be subjective. 
The differences in context however are objective and can't be dismissed because the viticms can't see them.

I realise I might have said that objectively speaking, motives matter. That's my personal belief, it isn't objective, so I retract that statement.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 novembre 2010 - 01:54 .

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

Jumping in here on a few points.

1.  Maric and his Chantry attack and displaying of heads - yea, that was way over the top.  Defiling a Chantry for political expedience?  Displaying heads, just like the Orlesian 'usurper' did?  People railed against that, and then Maric does it?  Way over the top.  And the Chantry attack - that really bothered me, and I'm not even religious.

The displaying of heads bothered me, too, but their methods were effective, apparently, because Ferelden gained and kept its independence and Maric was known as the Savior and not the Severer. It was a show for strength and confidence and it worked.

2.  Skadi makes excellent points on the slavery/taxing/conscription issues.  The motives don't matter one bit to the person being enslaved/taxed/cponscripted, nor to their families.  Orlesians did it - in popular opinion, I guess - for kicks.  Frankly, I doubt that - I think they did it for what they thought was good reasons.  Loghain thought he had good reasons too - yet the result was the same.  And his motives don't make it any better.

If the victims don't care about the reasons, then for that exact reason, they shouldn't be the ones allowed to make judgments about someone's punishment.

3.  Loghain was the only one to see them through the Blight?  Why?  How?  Anora had been running the country, from what we hear, for 5 years, and doing fine.  What makes Loghain qualified to do so?

Again, he's ruled the country before, too, when Maric wasn't doing it. I'm sure he has as much combined experience as Anora, and both of them have more experience than Alistair or the PC.  

Look at his actions in TST - nice general, not so good political guy - killing people during meetings is not exactly the best form of diplomacy. Loghain is a hammer, and sees everything as a nail - you can't rule that way.

Maric killed people at meetings, too, and he was considered (by Fereldens) to be a great ruler.  

4.  Finally, desperation is not an excuse at all.  I'm desperate for food, so I steal yours.  Is that okay? 

 Sometimes it changes what punishment I'd think was acceptable to dole out. Like that guy in Awakening who stole from the crown, for example. If he were a common bandit, then he'd have received a harsher punishment.

Let's see how you all feel if your government raises your taxes, sells your neighbor into slavery, or conscripts you or your kid into the army just because it's "desperate".  You'd be okay with that?

To preserve my country and what it stands for to me and others? If it was that desperate. Yes.

Modifié par phaonica, 19 novembre 2010 - 02:02 .

[TJPags]

I have to disagree with you.

Why is the actor more important than the victim?  If I kill your infant daughter because I honestly believe doing so will give me the secret to curing cancer, does that make it somehow better?  Are my motives more important than your grief, your hate?

I do think certain things are wrong in the absolute.  Slavery is one.  Rape is another.  There are others.  But I really can't justify those acts, no matter the motivation.

Motives matter, I agree there - but only to judge the appropriate reaction.  They rarely - if ever - change a reaction of "that is wrong" to "it's okay".  Perhaps they change the degree of wrongness, or lessen the severity of the appropriate reaction, but excuse it?  No, not to me.

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Jumping in here on a few points.

1.  Maric and his Chantry attack and displaying of heads - yea, that was way over the top.  Defiling a Chantry for political expedience?  Displaying heads, just like the Orlesian 'usurper' did?  People railed against that, and then Maric does it?  Way over the top.  And the Chantry attack - that really bothered me, and I'm not even religious.

The displaying of heads bothered me, too, but their methods were effective, apparently, because Ferelden gained and kept its independence and Maric was known as the Savior and not the Severer. It was a show for strength and confidence and it worked.

2.  Skadi makes excellent points on the slavery/taxing/conscription issues.  The motives don't matter one bit to the person being enslaved/taxed/cponscripted, nor to their families.  Orlesians did it - in popular opinion, I guess - for kicks.  Frankly, I doubt that - I think they did it for what they thought was good reasons.  Loghain thought he had good reasons too - yet the result was the same.  And his motives don't make it any better.

If the victims don't care about the reasons, then for that exact reason, they shouldn't be the ones allowed to make judgments about someone's punishment.

3.  Loghain was the only one to see them through the Blight?  Why?  How?  Anora had been running the country, from what we hear, for 5 years, and doing fine.  What makes Loghain qualified to do so?

Again, he's ruled the country before, too, when Maric wasn't doing it. I'm sure he has as much combined experience as Anora, and both of them have more experience than Alistair or the PC.  

Look at his actions in TST - nice general, not so good political guy - killing people during meetings is not exactly the best form of diplomacy. Loghain is a hammer, and sees everything as a nail - you can't rule that way.

Maric killed people at meetings, too, and he was considered (by Fereldens) to be a great ruler.  

4.  Finally, desperation is not an excuse at all.  I'm desperate for food, so I steal yours.  Is that okay? 

 Sometimes it changes what punishment I'd think was acceptable to dole out. Like that guy in Awakening who stole from the crown, for example. If he were a common bandit, then he'd have received a harsher punishment.

Let's see how you all feel if your government raises your taxes, sells your neighbor into slavery, or conscripts you or your kid into the army just because it's "desperate".  You'd be okay with that?

To preserve my country and what it stands for to me and others? If it was that desperate. Yes.

Would you destroy what it stands for to preserve it?  If your country stands for freedom, safety, would you take away freedom and safety just to keep a border intact?  Is that really any good?

As for Maric - how many people knew about the Chantry attack?  I got the impression that was kept kind of quiet.  The heirs of those killed knew what happnened - and fought for Orlais.  That's the only meeting I recall him killing people at.  Loghain did it in public, at a meeting to discuss how to proceed after taking Gwaryn.  People came to give their opinions - and the opinion Loghain didn't like, he silenced by putting a sword through the dissenter - in full view of everyone else.

Rule by threat like that is exactly what Ferelden was rebelling against, no?

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
Why is the actor more important than the victim?  If I kill your infant daughter because I honestly believe doing so will give me the secret to curing cancer, does that make it somehow better?  Are my motives more important than your grief, your hate?

I am not saying that the actor is more important than the victim as human beings. Or that what they feel surpasses in importance what the victim feels in and of itself. Or that the actor has more right to feel what he does than the victim. Of course not.

I am saying, if someone murdered my daughter, for it to be what I would consider a fair judgement, the reasons of the murder, the context and why the actor did what he did are more relevent to explore, analyse and understand in order to adequately judge, than my feelings that are obviously going to be extremily biased.

The results might not change my feelings at all in the matter. I don't think I would care in that moment, whether the murderer was say insane or not and I would want him severily punished.
However, it would be quite unfair to treat a murderer who has no control over his actions, like someone who does and relishes in it. Or if it's by accident or not....etc. And of course since we are talking about broader political issues, it, imo, becomes much more nuanced and complicated than those kinds of cases.

TJPags wrote...
Motives matter, I agree there - but only to judge the appropriate reaction.  They rarely - if ever - change a reaction of "that is wrong" to "it's okay".  Perhaps they change the degree of wrongness, or lessen the severity of the appropriate reaction, but excuse it?  No, not to me.

I can personally forgive or at least tolerate depending on such things. Context matters a lot. Some motives might be acceptable in one context, but unacceptable in another, for me. But that's my opinion. 

My initial point was, regardless of how you feel about Loghain's actions and whether they are justified or not, I simply wanted to point out that the differences in context between the Orlesian occupation and Loghain's regency are massive that I feel comparing them is at best superficial and not that pertinent.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 novembre 2010 - 02:17 .

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

Would you destroy what it stands for to preserve it?  If your country stands for freedom, safety, would you take away freedom and safety just to keep a border intact?  Is that really any good?

I wouldn't be in favor of destroying it, as in a permanent change, but a temporary one would be acceptable. And freedom and safety don't necessarily go together, either. I don't believe strongly in sacrificing privacy for safety. And I don't generally support slavery or internment, but I would support quarantine measures in certain circumstances.

As for Maric - how many people knew about the Chantry attack?  I got the impression that was kept kind of quiet.  The heirs of those killed knew what happnened - and fought for Orlais.  That's the only meeting I recall him killing people at. 

I don't know. I thought that the whole point was for people to know about it and know that Maric was serious.

 Loghain did it in public, at a meeting to discuss how to proceed after taking Gwaryn.  People came to give their opinions - and the opinion Loghain didn't like, he silenced by putting a sword through the dissenter - in full view of everyone else. Rule by threat like that is exactly what Ferelden was rebelling against, no?

It did turn into win by threat, there at the end, where they demanded that people choose a side. And they did win. And Maric did not gain a reputation for ruling the country in an oppressive manner. He didn't rule by threat, he only won the war by it.

Modifié par phaonica, 19 novembre 2010 - 02:31 .

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, I don't believe anything is "wrong" in absolute. Some things are just much harder to be justified, imo, because some acts have extremily limited to no use at all and are eaqsily replaceable 

I don't believe in absolutes either. I believe that no matter how horrific an act may be in one context, that another context (even a hypothetical one) could potentially justify it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
Rule by threat like that is exactly what Ferelden was rebelling against, no?

"and the walled-off elven Alienage is so overpopulated that several purges have been required to keep order in the last decade alone."
 - From In Pursuit of Knowledge: The Travels of a Chantry Scholar, by Brother Genitivi

They don't seem to mind purging elves, when they have to.
Necessity, or the perception of it, carries precedence.

I don't percieve Maric's rebellion in such idealised terms. Most rebelled probably because the Orlesians pushed them too hard unnecessarily, via taxation, harrasement and more horrific acts that served little purpose and were certainly counter-productive.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 19 novembre 2010 - 02:34 .

[Costin_Razvan]

I don't percieve Maric's rebellion in such idealised terms. Most rebelled probably because the Orlesians pushed them too hard unnecessarily, via taxation, harrasement and more horrific acts that served little purpose and were certainly counter-productive.

Exactly this. Maric himself says as much in TST.