12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Addai67 wrote...

And being a leader means murdering your political opponents?

If you want to survive politically, even physically, then yes, eliminating the powerful, dangerous political opponents is a necessity. If Loghain had any level of competance as a leader of a country as fickle and unstable as Ferelden, he should have had Eamon eliminated completely.

It was actually my arguement in the old days for executing Loghain at landsmeet: terminal failure and incompetance at the helm, resulting in a weakened Ferelden and a rather bloody civil war. Had Loghain simply did focused, targeted assasinations of dangerous opponents, and let Anora run the show, there would have been alot less death and destruction to innocents all oer ferelden who got caught up in the whole thing. I wouldn't have cared so much had a few nobles got greased, but the country remained stable and people weren't dying because of infighting and Loghain having to brutally surpress rebels.

Now personally, that does make me like Loghain a bit more. That he is not a politician, and lacks that ruthlessness. As a character, it makes him pretty awesome, and he could come to my barbecues anytime and raid my beer stocks. But I'd not want him running or trying to run the country. Whereas Anora, whose character is somewhat repellant to me, certainly gains my respect and confidence in her ability to be a successful leader.

[KnightofPhoenix]

For me, moderate ruthlessness (calculated, targeted, swift and clean, according to the circumstance. Not petty sadism) coupled with a vision are very admirable qualities. I wouldn't find a person who has those qualities to be repullant or any less awesome. Indeed, I'd think they are more awesome, but that's just me.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 février 2011 - 01:00 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Heh. I think you're just raising Anora to levels she doesn't deserve,

Not really. But if I had the choice between Anora or Loghain as a political leader, I would pick the former.
Of course the choice is moot and an unnecessary one, it could have been both but Loghain decided not to do it, for a weak reason.

No argument there, and I doubt Loghain would have done what he did if it were not a time of war.  Anora wasn't exactly showing well for herself at that point.

Anora's fine, but she's no great genius.  Simply the product of Maric and Loghain's training and a benefactor of their combined experience (edit: and a privileged upbringing, which she had the sense to take advantage of, unlike Cailan)

Complete failure to organise a defense against Orlais and most of them siding with the invaders. If Orlais wasn't so incompetent at conquering, Ferelden would not have gotten its independence. Complete failure to organise a defense against the darkspawn, with a civil war abrupting for poor reasons ("we don't want to obey orders! The only one we can follow is the imbecile Cailan"). Only way to defend is base it on the willingess of nobles who hate each other to provide troops (see free riding and buckpassing).  One of the poorest nations in Thedas. Virtually no central authority or administration, which means obstacles to a common economic and military policy....etc (cause imagine increasing trade and making coastland nobles or nobles with ressource rich lands richer than useless banns. Civil war looming).

They didn't fail, at either task.  They won against remarkable odds.

They're not terribly poor.  We really have had no close look at any other nation in Thedas.  I get the impression that Orlais has a wide gap between rich and poor.  That's not exactly "rich."  The wealth that they do have is largely because they've stolen it, in their conquests and from their own people.  That's not wealth, either.  It's just bankruptcy of a different kind.

A decentralized government is a good thing.  Denerim is as powerful as it needs to be and should not be made any more powerful.  Trying to violently subvert the national traditions will only breed more violence.  You're assuming it would actually work and then you'd have a tyrant state, but how long would that last?  If Loghain started assassinating enemies, he would not be the only one who would resort to that.

Don't tell me that there is a reason those systems died out.  As if the modern state is some sort of evolutionary pinnacle.  It's no better- it certainly hasn't produced less violence.  It's just as fragile as the systems it replaced, if not more, and will die out in its time.

Modifié par Addai67, 12 février 2011 - 04:31 .

[Addai]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
Had Loghain simply did focused, targeted assasinations of dangerous opponents, and let Anora run the show, there would have been alot less death and destruction to innocents all oer ferelden who got caught up in the whole thing. I wouldn't have cared so much had a few nobles got greased, but the country remained stable and people weren't dying because of infighting and Loghain having to brutally surpress rebels.

And you think other nobles would stand by and let that happen?  Why should they?

Now personally, that does make me like Loghain a bit more. That he is not a politician, and lacks that ruthlessness. As a character, it makes him pretty awesome, and he could come to my barbecues anytime and raid my beer stocks. But I'd not want him running or trying to run the country. Whereas Anora, whose character is somewhat repellant to me, certainly gains my respect and confidence in her ability to be a successful leader.

Who did she assassinate?

Modifié par Addai67, 12 février 2011 - 04:30 .

[Costin_Razvan]

They didn't fail, at either task. They won against remarkable odds

After a century of occupation they "won", though I wouldn't call that a victory but rather a massive failure on Meghren's part as a leader. Put someone like Anora or Bhelen to rule Fereldan for Orlais during the rebelion and I can guarantee that the Rebels would have been crushed.

A decentralized government is a good thing. Denerim is as powerful as it needs to be and should not be made any more powerful. Trying to violently subvert the national traditions will only breed more violence. You're assuming it would actually work and then you'd have a tyrant state, but how long would that last? If Loghain started assassinating enemies, he would not be the only one who would resort to that.

How is it a good thing to have a decentralized government when ALL the nobles are power hungry and constantly wage local wars. This is EXACTLY how the situation in France was before Louis the XIV, or the Sun King as he was called, took power. He however stopped this bull**** and forced the nobility to comply with the Royal Authority.

There is a reason why he became the greatest ruler of France before Napoleon. Then again Louis did not have to contend with people who wage wars over bloody trees, which is why I still think the best solution is to eliminate them all.

No Government can work on a system of appeasement and expect it's country to prosper. The Crown simply does not have the power to implement the needed reforms then as some people will always get pissed by change.

 And you think other nobles would stand by and let that happen?  Why should they?

The nobles of Fereldan do not trust or like each other in the slighest. Each of them wants to increase his or her own personal power and will do whatever it takes for that.

The only way the nobles would learn it was Loghain was if the assassin got caught and then revealed whom he was working for...and unlike Zevran most assassins are not exactly forthcoming. The likely situation is that if a Bann died then there would be rumors: Blaming Loghain and/or blaming other nobles.

The only unity the Bannorn displays in-game is to unite against Loghain, but that's it. Kill one of them off and that unity could very well vanish.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 12 février 2011 - 04:56 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
No argument there, and I doubt Loghain would have done what he did if it were not a time of war.  Anora wasn't exactly showing well for herself at that point.

Irrelevent, Anora didn't need military skills, Loghain would take care of that while she takes care of the political side that he clearly fails at.

They didn't fail, at either task.  They won against remarkable odds.

After 90 years of occupation, you call that not a failure? Had the Orlesians not been imbeciles, it would have taken centuries. As for the Blight, allies and luck. If the Archdemon was not stupid enough to go to Denerim for no reason, Ferelden would have lost.

Addai67 wrote...
They're not terribly poor.  We really have had no close look at any other nation in Thedas.  I get the impression that Orlais has a wide gap between rich and poor.  That's not exactly "rich."  The wealth that they do have is largely because they've stolen it, in their conquests and from their own people.  That's not wealth, either.  It's just bankruptcy of a different kind.

Sigh, yea. Because wealthy nations in our history were so not based on exploitation, colonialism, plunder and loot in one way or another (and they are certainly not based on that now!). Yes, that is wealth. Whether you think it's "wrong" or not is irrelevent. By your logic, no country has ever been wealthy.
And wide gap between rich and poor does not mean that a state is not wealthy. In fact one consequence of surplus wealth is an inevitable widening gap in society. Again, by your logic, no non-egalitarian state is wealthy. Hmmm.

Addai67 wrote...
A decentralized government is a good thing.  Denerim is as powerful as it needs to be and should not be made any more powerful.  Trying to violently subvert the national traditions will only breed more violence.  You're assuming it would actually work and then you'd have a tyrant state, but how long would that last?  If Loghain started assassinating enemies, he would not be the only one who would resort to that.

Notice how you do not bring concret arguments, but refer to "tyranny" as usual. And decentralised governments being a good thing without any argument to support that. How would you organise the military and rely on each individual noble giving you his men knowing how much they hate each other? How  would you enact economic policies and make sure everyone is happy with it?  Or let's just be satisfied with the status quo and screw reforms because in your world, there is no such thing as an external threat and everyone can live isolated with their own perfect systems?

Why would it breed more violence if done well? And even if it does breed more violence, if the end result ends up being a proper state, then so be it. A swift period of violence is better than protracted violence that lasts for years, decades and cneturies.
And if Loghain was succesful, he would have no opponents who would resort to the same tactics. Been done a million times in our history. The Leviathan (be it individual or government) succesfully claiming the monopoly on legitimate use of force and everyone else falling in line and not resorting to the same tactics.

And I am making no assumptions, but if we are going to not do something because it might fail, might as well stay living in caves.
No regime lasts forever and length is only one dimension. What matters is what they end up producing for both their people and for humanity in the long run. Great nations fall, but their legacy is strong and their achievements and accomplishments felt. And hence lies human evolution. Ferelden is nothing but an immobile static country that offers nothing, achieved nothing except Andraste, and whether it exists or not is utterly inconsequential. And not only that, but it fails to defend itself properly, from both itself and exterior enemies. 

Addai67 wrote...
Don't tell me that there is a reason those systems died out.  As if the modern state is some sort of evolutionary pinnacle.  It's no better- it certainly hasn't produced less violence.  It's just as fragile as the systems it replaced, if not more, and will die out in its time.

I just said, not only in the modern era. All great nations that made something out of themselves had an element of a centralised administration and bureaucracy. Name me one country with a decentralized govenrment like that of Ferelden that achieved anything worthwhile in the long run, except of course naturally evolve into a centralised state.

And of course there is a reason why they died out. Such a system is fundamentally irrational. It is based on the clash between two authorities that have the same roles and powers, rendering the system immobile, or divided in case the higher authority fails to subdue the lesser one. If division is what you seek, then yea sure decentralised governments are great. Let's just hope that there aren't a united people nearby that would divide, conquer and swallow them.

But that's the problem with your argument and your entire philosophy. You fail to take into account the international context and argue for systems with the assumption that each state is an isolated unit. As if there is no contact with the outside world and as if those interactions don't force peoples and nations to adapt. If not to fend off military threats, then to resist economic and cultural encroachement. Not that I blame you, many in history made this guargantuan mistake, until their countries were humiliated, devoured and stepped on, reminding them of their own weakness. If they lived that is.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 février 2011 - 05:04 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
And you think other nobles would stand by and let that happen?  Why should they?

Fear and greed. Carrot and stick. 

The fools who would fight for trees and wool will not be hard to persuade.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
After 90 years of occupation, you call that not a failure? Had the Orlesians not been imbeciles, it would have taken centuries. As for the Blight, allies and luck. If the Archdemon was not stupid enough to go to Denerim for no reason, Ferelden would have lost.

It's true that the Orlesians helped their own demise, but it was both/and. Likewise with the Blight.  The strength of Ferelden is at the local level, not in Denerim.

Sigh, yea. Because wealthy nations in our history were so not based on exploitation, colonialism, plunder and loot in one way or another (and they are certainly not based on that now!). Yes, that is wealth. Whether you think it's "wrong" or not is irrelevent. By your logic, no country has ever been wealthy.

Orlais is collapsing in on its own decadence.  And it's not irrelevant what I think is wrong- we're discussing opinions, I have mine and you have yours.

Or let's just be satisfied with the status quo and screw reforms because in your world, there is no such thing as an external threat and everyone can live isolated with their own perfect systems?

Yes.  Ferelden is doing fine in its current system.

And I am making no assumptions, but if we are going to not do something because it might fail, might as well stay living in caves.

No, IMO what you suggest is wrong to attempt at all.

No regime lasts forever and length is only one dimension. What matters is what they end up producing for both their people and for humanity in the long run. Great nations fall, but their legacy is strong and their achievements and accomplishments felt. And hence lies human evolution. Ferelden is nothing but an immobile static country that offers nothing, achieved nothing except Andraste, and whether it exists or not is utterly inconsequential. And not only that, but it fails to defend itself properly, from both itself and exterior enemies. 

I don't believe in evolution, for one.  Humans adapt, **** happens, and they adapt again.  There is no linear movement towards a glorious future.  And your opinion of Ferelden is ridiculous.  What country would you point to then?  Tevinter?  Orlais?  *laugh*

I just said, not only in the modern era. All great nations that made something out of themselves had an element of a centralised administration and bureaucracy. Name me one country with a decentralized govenrment like that of Ferelden that achieved anything worthwhile in the long run, except of course naturally evolve into a centralised state.

We differ on what counts as worthwhile.

But our outlooks are probably too different to adequately discuss and it ends up being off topic.  And with Costin chiming in, it will end up being personal, too.  So finis.

Modifié par Addai67, 12 février 2011 - 06:11 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
It's true that the Orlesians helped their own demise, but it was both/and. Likewise with the Blight.  The strength of Ferelden is at the local level, not in Denerim.

It was certainly not the "local level" that saved Ferelden from Orlais, it was Loghain commanding the militia properly and killing traitorous or coward nobles. And certainly not in the blight, it was the Warden uniting an army and then uniting Ferelden, under Denerim's authority (and potentially, even after a coup d'etat). Without that, the local level banns would have been crushed utterly because they are too busy fighting each other. 

You do not seem to realize how humiliating Ferelden's defeat was when Orlais invaded, nor do you seem to realise that your beloved "local level" decided to collaborate with the invaders until of course they realised their fotunes lie else where.

 And it's not irrelevant what I think is wrong- we're discussing opinions, I have mine and you have yours.

It is irrelevent. I am discussing material, concret issues that can be discussed objectively, that of decentralised governments vs centralised. You are referring to subjective ideals that I do not have the patience nor interest to discuss. Because they don't matter to me in issues like this.

Yes.  Ferelden is doing fine in its current system.

Ignoring all evidence and everything that you see in front of you.
Many thought that way before they were crushed. Quite frankly, they partially deserve it. Yes, even my own people.

No, IMO what you suggest is wrong to attempt at all.

Again, irrlevent. I couldn't care less what you think is "wrong". What I care about is material evidence and concret arguments that can be objectively discussed.

I don't believe in evolution, for one.  Humans adapt, **** happens, and they adapt again.  There is no linear movement towards a glorious future.  And your opinion of Ferelden is ridiculous.  What country would you point to then?  Tevinter?  Orlais?  *laugh*

You mean the Empire which vestiges we see even after millenia (highways) and from which all of Thedas still benefits? The civilization that was unrivalled in magic, wealth and power and which has survived countless threats? Yes, that's a great nation.
Orlais, you mean the nation that filled the vacuum left by Tevinter for a while, established cultural hegemony and was crucial in defeating several blights? Yes, that's a great nation.
What did Ferelden do other than Andraste? What did it offer to the Thedas?

All great nations decade and collapse. Their legacy and their accomplishments and contributions do not.

And humans adapt, but then you say Ferelden is all fine and it never needs to change, because obviously **** never happened there? Ok...

I never said evolution is linear, it can be circular. Point is, advancement exists and happens. Adapting is necessary, but you obviously don't take that into account, because you fail to take into context the international system and, like any idealist, fail to see how the world works. If you do not strengthen your community, another community will surpass yours in power and crush you. And through strife, humans advance.  

Efficiency, rationalization, intellectual and economic flourishing and more importantly power to fuel them, those are objective concret realities that can be assessed and calculated. Attaining them is evolution. Not only for the ones who do, but for humanity in general. 

But our outlooks are probably too different to adequately discuss and it ends up being off topic.  And with Costin chiming in, it will end up being personal, too.  So finis.

The major difference is you bringing up "right" and "wrong" into the equation. It has nothing to do with it, nor should it. There is the world and how it is and what it demands.

As for what is worthwhile. What do you think is worthwhile? Living happily in an isolated community, completely oblivious to the external world, grazing grass and sleeping in huts with no urge to advance, occasionally killing each other for trees? Well naturally you'd think Ferelden is awesome the way it is.    

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 février 2011 - 06:39 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Addai67 wrote...

And you think other nobles would stand by and let that happen?  Why should they?

If played right, yes they would. They fight amongst each other and engage in petty power struggles, they could be played off on one another. If you are going to assasinate a particular noble, find out who their enemies are, and you'll have supporters in your endeavor.

Who did she assassinate?

It's all speculation, but haven't you ever wondered who contracted all those Crow contracts? (other than the noble whose kid you save).

She totally has it in her to do something like that.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

For me, moderate ruthlessness (calculated, targeted, swift and clean, according to the circumstance. Not petty sadism) coupled with a vision are very admirable qualities. 

Well, put like that, yes. But in general, no. Still, strangely enough, the qualities I find admirable in a leader are not qualities that I would find admirable in a friend or companion.

[DragonRacer13]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The major difference is you bringing up "right" and "wrong" into the equation. It has nothing to do with it, nor should it. There is the world and how it is and what it demands. 
    

Here is where everything breaks down, I believe. Morality is very personally subjective, but it IS important and DOES play a factor in arguments/discussions because it IS important to some people (I would daresay even most people, but they probably don't matter since the lot of you consider them sheep and cattle anyway  ); obviously not to you and some of the others - you guys make that abundantly clear and particularly when Addai gets talked down to for it as if she is some misguided little child.

I, for one, do not feel like getting involved in this pissing match any further than this one post. Because that's all it's going to degrade into. But I felt the need to point out that ideas of right and wrong certainly play a factor because to those who have beliefs in such things, it matters and it's rather condescending to talk down to people because they have such ideals and you, obviously, either don't or don't think they matter.

Addai, I wish you luck. But I think all you will succeed in doing is giving yourself a massive headache banging your head against Knight's wall.

[Costin_Razvan]

But I felt the need to point out that ideas of right and wrong certainly play a factor because to those who have beliefs in such things, it matters and it's rather condescending to talk down to people because they have such ideals and you, obviously, either don't or don't think they matter.

Just because one has an opinion doesn't mean that it can't be wrong. The only argument Addai has provided is that certain measures are "wrong" from a moral point of view. Moral being completely irrelevant in politics.



The type of leadership Addai argues for is the exact same kind Harrowmont provides. as in preserving the status quo while Knight, myself and Skadi argue that someone like Bhelen is needed.



I think I do not need to say what the outcome of a Harrowmont like leadership against a Bhelen like one is

[nos_astra]

You make politics sound so easy and I keep wondering if this is actually wisdom or naivety? All the blind faith in characters like Anora, Bhelen and Loghain based on a few words of dialogue and epilogue.

Put a ruthless bastard in charge who's arrogant enough to believe he's best suited for the job, then have him push button B for result X. Glorious.

Modifié par klarabella, 12 février 2011 - 04:24 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

DragonRacer13 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The major difference is you bringing up "right" and "wrong" into the equation. It has nothing to do with it, nor should it. There is the world and how it is and what it demands. 
    

Here is where everything breaks down, I believe. Morality is very personally subjective, but it IS important and DOES play a factor in arguments/discussions because it IS important to some people

It doesn't. Why? Because like you said it's subjective. So what do you want me to discuss about it?

"I think it's wrong"
"...Ok".

What else could I say?
I could go into ethics and discuss it, I am fairly knowledgeable about that, but that will broaden the discussion way too much. I prefer a focused discussion, where we don't talk about objectivity and ethics at the same time.

I am not saying that her opinion of right and wrong, or anyone elses, is irrelevent in absolute. I am saying they are irrelevent in a discussion that is supposed to talk about objective issues. But what can I say other than "ok" to what she believes is wrong? Unless you really want me to go into ethics and dissect her entire philosophy of "right" and "wrong" but that will cause even more headaches.

I apologize if I sounded offensive and condenscending, it was not my intent. 
EDIT: I will add however that there were some provocations in Addai's posts.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 février 2011 - 04:40 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...

You make politics sound so easy and I keep wondering if this is actually wisdom or naivety? All the blind faith in characters like Anora, Bhelen and Loghain based on a few words of dialogue and epilogue.

Put a ruthless bastard in charge who's arrogant enough to believe he's best suited for the job, then push button B for result X.

Costin studied history. I too have been interested in history since childhood and I minored in it.
I think we both know what we are talking about quite a bit and  you'll forgive me for not writing a dissertation on this. I might, if there would be people willing to read and discuss it objectively. 

The choice of Bhelen involves much more than what you just said, but you already know that, it's been argued a million times.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
It's true that the Orlesians helped their own demise, but it was both/and. Likewise with the Blight.  The strength of Ferelden is at the local level, not in Denerim.

It was certainly not the "local level" that saved Ferelden from Orlais, it was Loghain commanding the militia properly and killing traitorous or coward nobles. And certainly not in the blight, it was the Warden uniting an army and then uniting Ferelden, under Denerim's authority (and potentially, even after a coup d'etat). Without that, the local level banns would have been crushed utterly because they are too busy fighting each other. 

Yes, it was.  The rebellion did not start to turn until the bannorn turned.  Granted, that was in part out of fear after Maric's reprisals, but that was a case of blood rights and not what you're talking about.

You do not seem to realize how humiliating Ferelden's defeat was when Orlais invaded, nor do you seem to realise that your beloved "local level" decided to collaborate with the invaders until of course they realised their fotunes lie else where.

That fight was lost when Denerim was strong and thus it undercuts your argument.

It is irrelevent. I am discussing material, concret issues that can be discussed objectively, that of decentralised governments vs centralised. You are referring to subjective ideals that I do not have the patience nor interest to discuss. Because they don't matter to me in issues like this.

Right, you think your political opinions are facts, I realize this and hence why this discussion is unproductive.

You mean the Empire which vestiges we see even after millenia (highways) and from which all of Thedas still benefits? The civilization that was unrivalled in magic, wealth and power and which has survived countless threats? Yes, that's a great nation.

Crumbling vestiges.  They were kicked out by the "barbarians," too.    Even though they resorted to mass murder to build themselves up.

See, empire types always think they're so great and that justifies their various slaughters and chicanery because they're supposedly spreading noble ideals that will make up for it.  They also think anyone who isn't with the program are "barbarians."  Makes it easier to kill them.  But, they always get it in the end.  Power carries its owns seeds of destruction.  You go on your assassination spree, it will come back.

As for evolution, I see history in circular terms.  The very technologies and systems that allow so-called advancement bring more suffering as well as good and they will crumble.  I don't hate progress, I think it is just extremely limited and shouldn't be worshipped as an end.  Hence why I have an allergy to political reformers of all kinds. (It's been a tough decade to be an American of my sort.  *sigh*)

What I really like about Maric and Loghain's story is that they represent not the Caesars of the world, but a Vercingetorix and Commius who actually won. 

Modifié par Addai67, 12 février 2011 - 05:38 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

klarabella wrote...

You make politics sound so easy and I keep wondering if this is actually wisdom or naivety? All the blind faith in characters like Anora, Bhelen and Loghain based on a few words of dialogue and epilogue.

Put a ruthless bastard in charge who's arrogant enough to believe he's best suited for the job, then push button B for result X.

Costin studied history. I too have been interested in history since childhood and I minored in it.
I think we both know what we are talking about quite a bit and  you'll forgive me for not writing a dissertation on this. I might, if there would be people willing to read and discuss it objectively. 

The choice of Bhelen involves much more than what you just said, but you already know that, it's been argued a million times.

And I studied history, too.  Much as Costin likes to flame me for being a "Harrowmont," whatever that means, my views are based on my study and have evolved quite a bit since I was younger.  I'm sure they'll evolve again.

You'll forgive me for saying that you remind me of a lot of younger males I've come across who are very in love with their own ideals and outlook.  That confidence is a good thing, but I take it with a certain grain of salt.  Doesn't mean I don't respect both you and Costin for your expertise.  Or for your determination. 

Modifié par Addai67, 12 février 2011 - 05:47 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Yes, it was.  The rebellion did not start to turn until the bannorn turned.  Granted, that was in part out of fear after Maric's reprisals, but that was a case of blood rights and not what you're talking about.

Exactly what I am talking about. Maric (Loghain) imposed himself on them. Going as far as to murder some of them in a meeting in a sacred place.

That fight was lost when Denerim was strong and thus it undercuts your argument.

What are you talking about?
Because of Loghain's failure of playing politics, which was my entire point? Or you mean at the end, when apparently the entire army went to Redcliffe because they thought the blight was going there?

Point stands, the Warden can make a coup d'etat, ignoring completely what the Landsmeet says and win. By that time, the army is under the Warden's command and the idiot banns have no choice but to follow. After thousands died because of their idiocy (and Loghain's).

Right, you think your political opinions are facts, I realize this and hence why this discussion is unproductive.

No, I think my political opinions are based on concret material objective elements that can be assessed. Not the case for your arguments.

Crumbling vestiges.  They were kicked out by the "barbarians," too.    Even though they resorted to mass murder to build themselves up.

Vestiges still in use. And yes barbarians defeated them. Barbarians that were never able to accomplish what Tevinter accomplished. You have this romantic view of the barbarian, while they are no less savage than anyone else, except they don't have the accomplishments to justify it and make their existence worthwhile.

Tevinter would have had the legacy it deserves if it weren't for Chantry propaganda.

Addai67 wrote...
See, empire types always think they're so great and that justifies their various slaughters and chicanery because they're supposedly spreading noble ideals that will make up for it.  They also think anyone who isn't with the program are "barbarians."  Makes it easier to kill them.  But, they always get it in the end.  Power carries its owns seeds of destruction.  You go on your assassination spree, it will come back.

Those empires that you hate so much are the giants that pushed us forward. In science, medicine, technology, art, architecture, philosophy, culture, literrature. The things that you conveniently benefit from now, but hate their source and origin.

No power lasts forever and that argument I have addressed already. I'd rather have a nation that enters a period of greatness, achieves many things and contributres to the world and then weakens, rather than live a life of animals, content with only eating and sleeping, before being inevitably devoured by those who choose something greater.

Addai67 wrote...
As for evolution, I see history in circular terms.  The very technologies and systems that allow so-called advancement bring more suffering as well as good and they will crumble.  I don't hate progress, I think it is just extremely limited and shouldn't be worshipped as an end.  Hence why I have an allergy to political reformers of all kinds. (It's been a tough decade to be an American of my sort.  *sigh*)

Try living somewhere else and let's see if that attitude lasts.
Progress limited? With your logic, we should have stayed living in caves, why make progress at all if it's so useless.

I'd almost tell you that you should go live in society that you seem to idealize so much instead of benefitting from the progress that you think is fickle.

But again, you still fail to address the international context. You think political communities are isolated. You do not address the possibility that a neighbouring nation does what you fail to do and ends up being much more powerful and conquers you.  But of course, romantic idealized barbarian resistance, right?

Addai67 wrote...
What I really like about Maric and Loghain's story is that they represent not the Caesars of the world, but a Vercingetorix and Commius who actually won. 

Too bad for you, those kind of people have a habit of losing pretty badly and even if they won, they will not intellectually and culturally surpass the great nations they defeated by force of arms.
Had Vercingetorix won, France would not have become anything. SInce the Romans won, people like Charlemagne were able to arise eventually.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 février 2011 - 06:00 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
And I studied history, too. 

I know and unfortunately, I have yet to see any objective argument based on your studies.
What I see is you loving primitive societies, hating empires, killing being "wrong, and that's pretty much it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 février 2011 - 06:00 .

[Persephone]

Guys, guys....I was so happy to see this thread arise from its slumber.... Don't fight.......

[KnightofPhoenix]

We're not fighting. We're simply unable to discuss properly because we are not discussing the same thing.

[DragonRacer13]

Persephone wrote...

Guys, guys....I was so happy to see this thread arise from its slumber.... Don't fight.......

Good point, Peacekeeper Persephone.  Loghain doesn't have a whole lot of supporters out there, so we should probably refrain from devouring each other. Troop in-fighting makes him cranky...

[Costin_Razvan]

And I studied history, too. Much as Costin likes to flame me for being a "Harrowmont," whatever that means, my views are based on my study and have evolved quite a bit since I was younger. I'm sure they'll evolve again.

You'll forgive me for saying that you remind me of a lot of younger males I've come across who are very in love with their own ideals and outlook. That confidence is a good thing, but I take it with a certain grain of salt. Doesn't mean I don't respect both you and Costin for your expertise. Or for your determination.

Spoken like one who is living a decent life and hasn't endured much hardship. My world view is not shaped by my studies ( though they do play a part ) but rather by own experiences in life.

Oddly enough when I was younger I used to view the world as naively as...Cailan would do. But things change over time. An economic crisis and a leader who wanted to pay a foreign debt during it thus starving my entire country. A revolution and the removal of a authoritarian leader. Oh the hopes people had when it happened.

Twenty years later and idealism fades as life slams one in the face. Democracy gave us nothing more then corrupt, inept leaders, mafia taking over the country, widespread unemployment. A situation worse then we were in under a "dictator"

End result. Morality can go **** itself for all I care, it most certainly won't help you when you have to count each peny you spend for food ( and I count myself in a good situation....there are people who are completely screwed over ).

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 12 février 2011 - 06:34 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I was much more idealistic too, I was a communist. I am not joking.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 février 2011 - 06:40 .