486 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Mari
And that's pretty much how real life works.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 25 septembre 2010 - 12:01 .

[testing123]

I think the decision of whether or not to spare Loghain makes hypocrites of us all.  

Generally speaking, Alistair supporters are more emotional 'softies' that want to believe that doing what is 'right' will always make the world a better place.  In your game, Loghain has abandoned thousands to die, sent assassins after you, spread false propaganda about the Grey Wardens and sold Fereldens into slavery.  Clearly he must be evil!  He must be slain with righteous fury!  But, if you understand Loghain as a character, if you really understand why he does what he does, can you truly fault his intentions?  He wants to make Ferelden safer for the majority of citizens.  He is doing what he feels is right, while remaining realistic about the potential consequences.  Is it truly more 'right' to follow a dogmatic code of ethics in every different, completely unique scenario rather than attempt to achieve the safest, most reliable results?  Does a man who had purely noble intentions really deserve death according to your moral code?  Would it not serve more benefit to humanity as a whole to repurpose Loghain under your command to achieve some amount of good for all the pain he has caused?

If you are a Loghain fan who believes he made the best possible decision at every turn and made the best of a bad situation, you are obviously more likely to spare him.  The irony here is that he would never spare you, no matter your intentions.  If your sacrifice would serve to unite Ferelden behind him and allow him to better protect the nation, it would be a negligible price to pay.  Your death would merely be a means to the end of accomplishing his duty.  The ends justify the means.  But if that is true, then why should Loghain be spared?  If the ends justify the means, why then should Loghain be exonerated when his means take him to disastrous ends for Ferelden?  Why do his intentions matter when he has lived by a philosophy driven by results?  

I am sure everyone here has a reason why their decision doesn't make them feel like a hypocrite.  But I can't help but consider how backwards some of these arguments sound sometimes.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Being a fan of or sparing someone does not mean you have to follow his / her code of ethics. And I mostly endorse the ends justifies the means philosophy and I see Loghain as useful to that end. He doesn't see me as useful because he thinks all Wardens are a threat, so naturally eliminating them is the sound thing to do. I don't see him as a threat, not when he yielded, so naturally making use of him is the sound thing to do (coupled with a variety of other pragmatic reasons).

So it's more about differences of perception and not really ethical differences. Having different perspectives does not make either party hypocritical.

[TJPags]

jvee wrote...

I think the decision of whether or not to spare Loghain makes hypocrites of us all.  

Generally speaking, Alistair supporters are more emotional 'softies' that want to believe that doing what is 'right' will always make the world a better place.  In your game, Loghain has abandoned thousands to die, sent assassins after you, spread false propaganda about the Grey Wardens and sold Fereldens into slavery.  Clearly he must be evil!  He must be slain with righteous fury!  But, if you understand Loghain as a character, if you really understand why he does what he does, can you truly fault his intentions?  He wants to make Ferelden safer for the majority of citizens.  He is doing what he feels is right, while remaining realistic about the potential consequences.  Is it truly more 'right' to follow a dogmatic code of ethics in every different, completely unique scenario rather than attempt to achieve the safest, most reliable results?  Does a man who had purely noble intentions really deserve death according to your moral code?  Would it not serve more benefit to humanity as a whole to repurpose Loghain under your command to achieve some amount of good for all the pain he has caused?

If you are a Loghain fan who believes he made the best possible decision at every turn and made the best of a bad situation, you are obviously more likely to spare him.  The irony here is that he would never spare you, no matter your intentions.  If your sacrifice would serve to unite Ferelden behind him and allow him to better protect the nation, it would be a negligible price to pay.  Your death would merely be a means to the end of accomplishing his duty.  The ends justify the means.  But if that is true, then why should Loghain be spared?  If the ends justify the means, why then should Loghain be exonerated when his means take him to disastrous ends for Ferelden?  Why do his intentions matter when he has lived by a philosophy driven by results?  

I am sure everyone here has a reason why their decision doesn't make them feel like a hypocrite.  But I can't help but consider how backwards some of these arguments sound sometimes.

I think ultimately nobody will change the other side's opinions.  But I don't think killing him or sparing him makes everyone a hypocrit.

I usually kill him - spared him once because I wanted to send Ali off as a drunk, just because.

I kill him because I perceive his actions as crimes.  Serious crimes.  And IMO, those crimes deserve death, regardless of the justification behind them.  Did he have noble intentions?  Maybe - I haven't read the books, and likely won't, so maybe his background makes it clear he does.  I've argued these points enough to realize some people are adamant about his motivations being good.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to the fact that I perceive his actions as crimes, regardless of the justification, and I feel the results are, as a whole, damaging.  Therefore, he deserves punishment.  The punishment that fits his crimes, IMO, is death - and I have no problem at all with that as a punishment.

Also, we don't have any other option to punish him, IMO.  Some may view the joining as a punishment, since there's a chance he may die during it.  But in my view, what if he doesn't?  Well, then he wasn't punished.  Maybe on some playthoughs I'd have taken an exile or imprisonment option, if it was there.  It isn't.  I know no more of his history than what's in the game, and the snippets I've read on these boards about the books, so I don't see him deserving redemption.

Has my character done some bad things?  Sure, in the view of some, all of them have do ne something despicable.  Do they deserve to die?  Well, maybe, in some eyes, they do.  But nobody ever judges my character.  I get to judge Loghain, becaise the Landsmeet cedes me that right.  So I exercise my judgment, and kill him.

Hypocrite?  I don't think so.

[Monica21]

TJPags wrote...
I think ultimately nobody will change the other side's opinions.

I changed my mind. *shrug* It happens. It was before I even read the books and the argument was on mostly in-game evidence.

As for the rest of your comments, I think what it boils down to for most people is that yes, he committed crimes, but not everyone will agree that the crime is worth death. Some have a very black and white view of him, but I think most see him in shades of gray. The darker the gray, the more likely he is to get decapitated.

[Siduri]

Monica21 wrote...

As for the rest of your comments, I think what it boils down to for most people is that yes, he committed crimes, but not everyone will agree that the crime is worth death. Some have a very black and white view of him, but I think most see him in shades of gray. The darker the gray, the more likely he is to get decapitated.

I think this is it in a nutshell.

For me Loghain is a really interesting character, but I see him as a very dark shade of grey. But I can totally see how people would choose to spare him; I think both viewpoints are valid. They just come from different perspectives on the world.

[CalJones]

@jvee - I tend to regard myself as a bit of a softy. It's why I want to give the fallen hero a second chance, and why I don't like to splatter his daughter with his blood (although as I said before, I spare Loghain for his sake, not Anora's. It's a consideration, though). So yes, you can spare Loghain out of a sense of pragmatism, but you can also spare him because you're a little sentimental, too.

[Persephone]

CalJones wrote...

@jvee - I tend to regard myself as a bit of a softy. It's why I want to give the fallen hero a second chance, and why I don't like to splatter his daughter with his blood (although as I said before, I spare Loghain for his sake, not Anora's. It's a consideration, though). So yes, you can spare Loghain out of a sense of pragmatism, but you can also spare him because you're a little sentimental, too.

Well said.

There are several reasons why I (usually) spare Loghain.

1) I do not kill those who surrender. (I even let Caladrius go these days)

2) Many of the things he has done were wrong/cruel. But he did not make those decisions just to get kicks out of being evil. It obviously drags him down.

3) The more Grey Wardens, the better. Riordan kinda has a point....

4) The bitter irony. Loghains mistrusts/despises the Wardens based on his history with them and their former treachery. Making him one.....well, that's sweet revenge, no?

And there are emotional reasons too. They may be useless in front of a jury but they matter to me:

1) The cutscene and the dialogue before it make me feel utterly vile

2) Giving a fallen hero (TST, TC) a second chance

3) That VOICE 

[nos_astra]

Persephone wrote...
1) I do not kill those who surrender. (Well, not necessarily true, but he does surrender and if I'm going to make Anora queen simply beheading him could be risky.)

3) The more Grey Wardens, the better. (Although it's a weak reason. We don't know yet if reinforcements will arrive in time and Alistair makes clear he's going to leave.)

4) The bitter irony. Loghains mistrusts/despises the Wardens based on his history with them and their former treachery. Making him one.....well, that's sweet revenge, no?

Those where my reasons for sparing him in my canon playthrough.

[TJPags]

Persephone wrote...

CalJones wrote...

@jvee - I tend to regard myself as a bit of a softy. It's why I want to give the fallen hero a second chance, and why I don't like to splatter his daughter with his blood (although as I said before, I spare Loghain for his sake, not Anora's. It's a consideration, though). So yes, you can spare Loghain out of a sense of pragmatism, but you can also spare him because you're a little sentimental, too.

Well said.

There are several reasons why I (usually) spare Loghain.

1) I do not kill those who surrender. (I even let Caladrius go these days)

2) Many of the things he has done were wrong/cruel. But he did not make those decisions just to get kicks out of being evil. It obviously drags him down.

3) The more Grey Wardens, the better. Riordan kinda has a point....

4) The bitter irony. Loghains mistrusts/despises the Wardens based on his history with them and their former treachery. Making him one.....well, that's sweet revenge, no?

And there are emotional reasons too. They may be useless in front of a jury but they matter to me:

1) The cutscene and the dialogue before it make me feel utterly vile

2) Giving a fallen hero (TST, TC) a second chance

3) That VOICE 

1) meh, he surrendered only after I put a knife to his throat.  Honestly, if he'd have given in after losing the Landsmeet, I might feel differently.
2)Don't matter - he stil made the decisions, he should suffer the consequences.
3)Riordan?  I don't even know the man - why should I listen to him, exactly?
4) Don't know anything about his history with the wardens.  Don't matter to me, either.  I never betrayed anyone, and he never gave me a chance.  I don't give him one, either.

1) Anora wants to be Queen so bad she stands against her father, reconciles herself to his possible death.  The fact of it shouldn't now bother her, nor will it ever sway me.
2)See 4, above.

3) Meh.

[Persephone]

TJPags wrote...

Persephone wrote...

CalJones wrote...

@jvee - I tend to regard myself as a bit of a softy. It's why I want to give the fallen hero a second chance, and why I don't like to splatter his daughter with his blood (although as I said before, I spare Loghain for his sake, not Anora's. It's a consideration, though). So yes, you can spare Loghain out of a sense of pragmatism, but you can also spare him because you're a little sentimental, too.

Well said.

There are several reasons why I (usually) spare Loghain.

1) I do not kill those who surrender. (I even let Caladrius go these days)

2) Many of the things he has done were wrong/cruel. But he did not make those decisions just to get kicks out of being evil. It obviously drags him down.

3) The more Grey Wardens, the better. Riordan kinda has a point....

4) The bitter irony. Loghains mistrusts/despises the Wardens based on his history with them and their former treachery. Making him one.....well, that's sweet revenge, no?

And there are emotional reasons too. They may be useless in front of a jury but they matter to me:

1) The cutscene and the dialogue before it make me feel utterly vile

2) Giving a fallen hero (TST, TC) a second chance

3) That VOICE 

1) meh, he surrendered only after I put a knife to his throat.  Honestly, if he'd have given in after losing the Landsmeet, I might feel differently.
2)Don't matter - he stil made the decisions, he should suffer the consequences.
3)Riordan?  I don't even know the man - why should I listen to him, exactly?
4) Don't know anything about his history with the wardens.  Don't matter to me, either.  I never betrayed anyone, and he never gave me a chance.  I don't give him one, either.

1) Anora wants to be Queen so bad she stands against her father, reconciles herself to his possible death.  The fact of it shouldn't now bother her, nor will it ever sway me.
2)See 4, above.

3) Meh.

1) We'll have to agree to disagree there.
2) See above.
3) Senior Grey Warden. Knows a little more than you do.
4) The "He did it! So I'll do it too!" justification won't convince me.

1) Anora wants what is best for Ferelden. And you CANNOT reconcile yourself to a parent's death. I have watched one of mine die, don't you DARE tell me that you can do such a thing. As for the last two sentences of your argument : They repulse me so much, I'll not even dignify them with an answer

Looking at your sig, you seem quite determined to vilify this character, to the point of granting that hatred part of your sig.

I have no problem with deciding to execute Loghain. Some of my Wardens still do it. Just FYI.

Sometimes haters come across as more callous than the characters they are bashing so relentlessly. No offense intended, but I that's how that whole post came across.

Modifié par Persephone, 26 septembre 2010 - 02:21 .

[TJPags]

Persephone, we will have to agree to disagree. It's that simple.



I see nothing to excuse his actions. You do, While I disagree with that, it's your choice in your game, my choice in mine.



Riordan is unknown to me. He is barely known to Alistair, the only other warden my PC knows. You say he's a senior warden. He IS a senior warden. But he says nothing when I speak to him before judging Loghain to make me think sparing Loghain is necesary. I choose not to take his vague word that "it might be helpful", in light of what I view as his crimes. Again, that's my PC's choice. You're welcome to yours.



As to your personal issue - I don't know you, and don't mean to attack you. Really, I don't. But Anora is not you. Anora tells the warden she's fine with her father being punished for his actions. The Landsmeet gives the warden the choice of punishment for Loghain - right or wrong, it does, That leaves it in my hands. No person wants to see a family member killed or a family member die. I get that - really, I do. But some people deserve to die. I view Loghain as one such - I;m not trying to convince you of that, but I have a right to my opinion. You disagree? That's your choice. This is mine.



As for my sig, and me being a "hater". My sig says what I feel - that IF there was an invasion, Loghain MIGHT have had an excuse for his actions. There wasn't, and he doesn't, IMO. It's my sig, and expresses my opinion. Ignore it if you don't like it. I don't "hate" Loghain. I execute a criminal. There's a difference.

[wickedgoodreed]

TJPags wrote...
I think ultimately nobody will change the other side's opinions.  But I don't think killing him or sparing him makes everyone a hypocrit.

I usually kill him - spared him once because I wanted to send Ali off as a drunk, just because.

I kill him because I perceive his actions as crimes.  Serious crimes.  And IMO, those crimes deserve death, regardless of the justification behind them.  Did he have noble intentions?  Maybe - I haven't read the books, and likely won't, so maybe his background makes it clear he does.  I've argued these points enough to realize some people are adamant about his motivations being good.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to the fact that I perceive his actions as crimes, regardless of the justification, and I feel the results are, as a whole, damaging.  Therefore, he deserves punishment.  The punishment that fits his crimes, IMO, is death - and I have no problem at all with that as a punishment.

Also, we don't have any other option to punish him, IMO.  Some may view the joining as a punishment, since there's a chance he may die during it.  But in my view, what if he doesn't?  Well, then he wasn't punished.  Maybe on some playthoughs I'd have taken an exile or imprisonment option, if it was there.  It isn't.  I know no more of his history than what's in the game, and the snippets I've read on these boards about the books, so I don't see him deserving redemption.

Has my character done some bad things?  Sure, in the view of some, all of them have do ne something despicable.  Do they deserve to die?  Well, maybe, in some eyes, they do.  But nobody ever judges my character.  I get to judge Loghain, becaise the Landsmeet cedes me that right.  So I exercise my judgment, and kill him.

Hypocrite?  I don't think so.

The Landsmeet gives you the authority to settle a particular dispute, the question of who should rule Ferelden, under a specific set of conditions, an honorable duel "fought according to tradition...until one party yields." Loghain yields; the dispute is settled. Yes, Loghain needs to be held accountable for his actions, but I don't think that you're really given the authority to judge him or execute him. To my mind, you're given the authority to remove him from power and beyond that, i.e. deteriming the full extent of his crimes and a fitting punishment for them, is an entirely different matter that should be settled by the Landsmeet seperately. Even if my Wardens believe that death is a fitting punishment, I don't think they should get to be judge, jury and executioner. Like you, I think there should be other options to deterime what to do with him besides the one presented in the game, but as it is presented, I have a hard time executing him, even if my characters believe it is fitting.

[Persephone]

TJPags wrote...

Persephone, we will have to agree to disagree. It's that simple.

I see nothing to excuse his actions. You do, While I disagree with that, it's your choice in your game, my choice in mine.

Riordan is unknown to me. He is barely known to Alistair, the only other warden my PC knows. You say he's a senior warden. He IS a senior warden. But he says nothing when I speak to him before judging Loghain to make me think sparing Loghain is necesary. I choose not to take his vague word that "it might be helpful", in light of what I view as his crimes. Again, that's my PC's choice. You're welcome to yours.

As to your personal issue - I don't know you, and don't mean to attack you. Really, I don't. But Anora is not you. Anora tells the warden she's fine with her father being punished for his actions. The Landsmeet gives the warden the choice of punishment for Loghain - right or wrong, it does, That leaves it in my hands. No person wants to see a family member killed or a family member die. I get that - really, I do. But some people deserve to die. I view Loghain as one such - I;m not trying to convince you of that, but I have a right to my opinion. You disagree? That's your choice. This is mine.

As for my sig, and me being a "hater". My sig says what I feel - that IF there was an invasion, Loghain MIGHT have had an excuse for his actions. There wasn't, and he doesn't, IMO. It's my sig, and expresses my opinion. Ignore it if you don't like it. I don't "hate" Loghain. I execute a criminal. There's a difference.

1) Agree to disagree. Yup.

2) Knowing him or not, I believe that the only Senior Warden around (Who had to suffer under Howe/Loghain!) should not be ignored. If he can see beyond it all, there must be an important reason.

3) Anora doesn't tell you that she is fine with you killing him. In fact, if you tell her that you will, she will no longer support you. Her Epilogue Card if she rules alone (With her father dead) is VERY telling. She loves her father. She reveres him. The Landsmeet doesn't give you the authority to condemn him and execute him, Opinion or no, in my opinion no one "deserves" to die and I will not play God, judge, jury and executioner. That's my opinion, by the way.

4) "I don't hate Loghain. I execute a criminal." Humility is a virtue. Or used to be. As is mercy. Like I said, the words "I do not hate....I execute a criminal!" are very telling.

Modifié par Persephone, 26 septembre 2010 - 02:47 .

[TJPags]

wickedgoodreed wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I think ultimately nobody will change the other side's opinions.  But I don't think killing him or sparing him makes everyone a hypocrit.

I usually kill him - spared him once because I wanted to send Ali off as a drunk, just because.

I kill him because I perceive his actions as crimes.  Serious crimes.  And IMO, those crimes deserve death, regardless of the justification behind them.  Did he have noble intentions?  Maybe - I haven't read the books, and likely won't, so maybe his background makes it clear he does.  I've argued these points enough to realize some people are adamant about his motivations being good.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to the fact that I perceive his actions as crimes, regardless of the justification, and I feel the results are, as a whole, damaging.  Therefore, he deserves punishment.  The punishment that fits his crimes, IMO, is death - and I have no problem at all with that as a punishment.

Also, we don't have any other option to punish him, IMO.  Some may view the joining as a punishment, since there's a chance he may die during it.  But in my view, what if he doesn't?  Well, then he wasn't punished.  Maybe on some playthoughs I'd have taken an exile or imprisonment option, if it was there.  It isn't.  I know no more of his history than what's in the game, and the snippets I've read on these boards about the books, so I don't see him deserving redemption.

Has my character done some bad things?  Sure, in the view of some, all of them have do ne something despicable.  Do they deserve to die?  Well, maybe, in some eyes, they do.  But nobody ever judges my character.  I get to judge Loghain, becaise the Landsmeet cedes me that right.  So I exercise my judgment, and kill him.

Hypocrite?  I don't think so.

The Landsmeet gives you the authority to settle a particular dispute, the question of who should rule Ferelden, under a specific set of conditions, an honorable duel "fought according to tradition...until one party yields." Loghain yields; the dispute is settled. Yes, Loghain needs to be held accountable for his actions, but I don't think that you're really given the authority to judge him or execute him. To my mind, you're given the authority to remove him from power and beyond that, i.e. deteriming the full extent of his crimes and a fitting punishment for them, is an entirely different matter that should be settled by the Landsmeet seperately. Even if my Wardens believe that death is a fitting punishment, I don't think they should get to be judge, jury and executioner. Like you, I think there should be other options to deterime what to do with him besides the one presented in the game, but as it is presented, I have a hard time executing him, even if my characters believe it is fitting.

You may have a point here.  Actually, I think you do have a point.

Yet I still run into the question of, what to do with him?  The game gives me two options - kill him then and there, or make him a Grey Warden.  I really do wish there had been another option.  But there isn't.

To me, then, I have to choose between killing him, which I do think he ultimately deserves, or giving him the chance to redeem himself as a Warden.  I don't see that second option as a punishment.  I just don't.  So there's nothing left but kill him.

It's also kind of crappy the the only thing resembling censure you receive for killing him is that, if your a HNM who kills him, Anora won't marry you - which is understandable on her part, but hardly any kind of true censure from the nobility of Ferelden.  (Not sure if she'll still marry Alistair if HE kills Loghain, as I've never played that).

Ultimately, the game makes us choose between kill him or make him a Warden.  Bad game mechanics, unfortunately.

[Persephone]

TJPags wrote...

wickedgoodreed wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I think ultimately nobody will change the other side's opinions.  But I don't think killing him or sparing him makes everyone a hypocrit.

I usually kill him - spared him once because I wanted to send Ali off as a drunk, just because.

I kill him because I perceive his actions as crimes.  Serious crimes.  And IMO, those crimes deserve death, regardless of the justification behind them.  Did he have noble intentions?  Maybe - I haven't read the books, and likely won't, so maybe his background makes it clear he does.  I've argued these points enough to realize some people are adamant about his motivations being good.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to the fact that I perceive his actions as crimes, regardless of the justification, and I feel the results are, as a whole, damaging.  Therefore, he deserves punishment.  The punishment that fits his crimes, IMO, is death - and I have no problem at all with that as a punishment.

Also, we don't have any other option to punish him, IMO.  Some may view the joining as a punishment, since there's a chance he may die during it.  But in my view, what if he doesn't?  Well, then he wasn't punished.  Maybe on some playthoughs I'd have taken an exile or imprisonment option, if it was there.  It isn't.  I know no more of his history than what's in the game, and the snippets I've read on these boards about the books, so I don't see him deserving redemption.

Has my character done some bad things?  Sure, in the view of some, all of them have do ne something despicable.  Do they deserve to die?  Well, maybe, in some eyes, they do.  But nobody ever judges my character.  I get to judge Loghain, becaise the Landsmeet cedes me that right.  So I exercise my judgment, and kill him.

Hypocrite?  I don't think so.

The Landsmeet gives you the authority to settle a particular dispute, the question of who should rule Ferelden, under a specific set of conditions, an honorable duel "fought according to tradition...until one party yields." Loghain yields; the dispute is settled. Yes, Loghain needs to be held accountable for his actions, but I don't think that you're really given the authority to judge him or execute him. To my mind, you're given the authority to remove him from power and beyond that, i.e. deteriming the full extent of his crimes and a fitting punishment for them, is an entirely different matter that should be settled by the Landsmeet seperately. Even if my Wardens believe that death is a fitting punishment, I don't think they should get to be judge, jury and executioner. Like you, I think there should be other options to deterime what to do with him besides the one presented in the game, but as it is presented, I have a hard time executing him, even if my characters believe it is fitting.

You may have a point here.  Actually, I think you do have a point.

Yet I still run into the question of, what to do with him?  The game gives me two options - kill him then and there, or make him a Grey Warden.  I really do wish there had been another option.  But there isn't.

To me, then, I have to choose between killing him, which I do think he ultimately deserves, or giving him the chance to redeem himself as a Warden.  I don't see that second option as a punishment.  I just don't.  So there's nothing left but kill him.

It's also kind of crappy the the only thing resembling censure you receive for killing him is that, if your a HNM who kills him, Anora won't marry you - which is understandable on her part, but hardly any kind of true censure from the nobility of Ferelden.  (Not sure if she'll still marry Alistair if HE kills Loghain, as I've never played that).

Ultimately, the game makes us choose between kill him or make him a Warden.  Bad game mechanics, unfortunately.

Well, I believe in redemption. So I guess I'm lucky.

And having his SOUL destroyed in addition to DYING, isn't a punishment? Really?

Anora will not marry her father's murderer. Be it the Warden or Alistair.

[TJPags]

Persephone wrote...

4) "I don't hate Loghain. I execute a criminal." Humility is a virtue. Or used to be. As is mercy. Like I said, the words "I do not hate....I execute a criminal!" are very telling.

You think every executioner hates the person they kill?  It's a job.

Me, I have no problem judging criminals, sentencing them, or carrying out the sentence.  I think the world is better off withOUT a lot of criminals.

I hope my words are "telling".  I'm also not particularly concerned with what they're "telling" you.

[TJPags]

Persephone wrote...

TJPags wrote...

wickedgoodreed wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I think ultimately nobody will change the other side's opinions.  But I don't think killing him or sparing him makes everyone a hypocrit.

I usually kill him - spared him once because I wanted to send Ali off as a drunk, just because.

I kill him because I perceive his actions as crimes.  Serious crimes.  And IMO, those crimes deserve death, regardless of the justification behind them.  Did he have noble intentions?  Maybe - I haven't read the books, and likely won't, so maybe his background makes it clear he does.  I've argued these points enough to realize some people are adamant about his motivations being good.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to the fact that I perceive his actions as crimes, regardless of the justification, and I feel the results are, as a whole, damaging.  Therefore, he deserves punishment.  The punishment that fits his crimes, IMO, is death - and I have no problem at all with that as a punishment.

Also, we don't have any other option to punish him, IMO.  Some may view the joining as a punishment, since there's a chance he may die during it.  But in my view, what if he doesn't?  Well, then he wasn't punished.  Maybe on some playthoughs I'd have taken an exile or imprisonment option, if it was there.  It isn't.  I know no more of his history than what's in the game, and the snippets I've read on these boards about the books, so I don't see him deserving redemption.

Has my character done some bad things?  Sure, in the view of some, all of them have do ne something despicable.  Do they deserve to die?  Well, maybe, in some eyes, they do.  But nobody ever judges my character.  I get to judge Loghain, becaise the Landsmeet cedes me that right.  So I exercise my judgment, and kill him.

Hypocrite?  I don't think so.

The Landsmeet gives you the authority to settle a particular dispute, the question of who should rule Ferelden, under a specific set of conditions, an honorable duel "fought according to tradition...until one party yields." Loghain yields; the dispute is settled. Yes, Loghain needs to be held accountable for his actions, but I don't think that you're really given the authority to judge him or execute him. To my mind, you're given the authority to remove him from power and beyond that, i.e. deteriming the full extent of his crimes and a fitting punishment for them, is an entirely different matter that should be settled by the Landsmeet seperately. Even if my Wardens believe that death is a fitting punishment, I don't think they should get to be judge, jury and executioner. Like you, I think there should be other options to deterime what to do with him besides the one presented in the game, but as it is presented, I have a hard time executing him, even if my characters believe it is fitting.

You may have a point here.  Actually, I think you do have a point.

Yet I still run into the question of, what to do with him?  The game gives me two options - kill him then and there, or make him a Grey Warden.  I really do wish there had been another option.  But there isn't.

To me, then, I have to choose between killing him, which I do think he ultimately deserves, or giving him the chance to redeem himself as a Warden.  I don't see that second option as a punishment.  I just don't.  So there's nothing left but kill him.

It's also kind of crappy the the only thing resembling censure you receive for killing him is that, if your a HNM who kills him, Anora won't marry you - which is understandable on her part, but hardly any kind of true censure from the nobility of Ferelden.  (Not sure if she'll still marry Alistair if HE kills Loghain, as I've never played that).

Ultimately, the game makes us choose between kill him or make him a Warden.  Bad game mechanics, unfortunately.

Well, I believe in redemption. So I guess I'm lucky.

And having his SOUL destroyed in addition to DYING, isn't a punishment? Really?

Anora will not marry her father's murderer. Be it the Warden or Alistair.

It assumes you believe in a soul.  It also assumes his "soul" is destroyed by killing Archie without having done the DR.  Because without those, his "soul" is not destroyed, is it?  For that matter, if he doesn't kill Archie with the DR having been turned down, he doesn't even die.
 
And I think that's the difference between you and I.  You believe in redemption, which is admirable.  I don't, which I suppose is less admirable, but there it is.

[Elhanan]

Even if one accepts the yield, then Alistair raises the points of the other crimes, Riordin steps in for another option, and you are still left with those two choices: death or the Joining. Thus, even by adhering to the rules of the Landsmeet, the final judgement is in the hands of the Warden, IMO.

[Persephone]

TJPags wrote...

Persephone wrote...

4) "I don't hate Loghain. I execute a criminal." Humility is a virtue. Or used to be. As is mercy. Like I said, the words "I do not hate....I execute a criminal!" are very telling.

You think every executioner hates the person they kill?  It's a job.

Me, I have no problem judging criminals, sentencing them, or carrying out the sentence.  I think the world is better off withOUT a lot of criminals.

I hope my words are "telling".  I'm also not particularly concerned with what they're "telling" you.

1) Oh, you/your Warden are as unbiased as a commissioned executioner? Nice fairy tale.

2) Glad you never get to play God, jury, judge and executioner in real life.

3) I am not asking you to be concerned re: how I read what you are saying. But maybe you could agree to disagree without a condescending sentence in the end that negates the whole "agree to disagree" bit.

[Persephone]

TJPags wrote...

Persephone wrote...

TJPags wrote...

wickedgoodreed wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I think ultimately nobody will change the other side's opinions.  But I don't think killing him or sparing him makes everyone a hypocrit.

I usually kill him - spared him once because I wanted to send Ali off as a drunk, just because.

I kill him because I perceive his actions as crimes.  Serious crimes.  And IMO, those crimes deserve death, regardless of the justification behind them.  Did he have noble intentions?  Maybe - I haven't read the books, and likely won't, so maybe his background makes it clear he does.  I've argued these points enough to realize some people are adamant about his motivations being good.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to the fact that I perceive his actions as crimes, regardless of the justification, and I feel the results are, as a whole, damaging.  Therefore, he deserves punishment.  The punishment that fits his crimes, IMO, is death - and I have no problem at all with that as a punishment.

Also, we don't have any other option to punish him, IMO.  Some may view the joining as a punishment, since there's a chance he may die during it.  But in my view, what if he doesn't?  Well, then he wasn't punished.  Maybe on some playthoughs I'd have taken an exile or imprisonment option, if it was there.  It isn't.  I know no more of his history than what's in the game, and the snippets I've read on these boards about the books, so I don't see him deserving redemption.

Has my character done some bad things?  Sure, in the view of some, all of them have do ne something despicable.  Do they deserve to die?  Well, maybe, in some eyes, they do.  But nobody ever judges my character.  I get to judge Loghain, becaise the Landsmeet cedes me that right.  So I exercise my judgment, and kill him.

Hypocrite?  I don't think so.

The Landsmeet gives you the authority to settle a particular dispute, the question of who should rule Ferelden, under a specific set of conditions, an honorable duel "fought according to tradition...until one party yields." Loghain yields; the dispute is settled. Yes, Loghain needs to be held accountable for his actions, but I don't think that you're really given the authority to judge him or execute him. To my mind, you're given the authority to remove him from power and beyond that, i.e. deteriming the full extent of his crimes and a fitting punishment for them, is an entirely different matter that should be settled by the Landsmeet seperately. Even if my Wardens believe that death is a fitting punishment, I don't think they should get to be judge, jury and executioner. Like you, I think there should be other options to deterime what to do with him besides the one presented in the game, but as it is presented, I have a hard time executing him, even if my characters believe it is fitting.

You may have a point here.  Actually, I think you do have a point.

Yet I still run into the question of, what to do with him?  The game gives me two options - kill him then and there, or make him a Grey Warden.  I really do wish there had been another option.  But there isn't.

To me, then, I have to choose between killing him, which I do think he ultimately deserves, or giving him the chance to redeem himself as a Warden.  I don't see that second option as a punishment.  I just don't.  So there's nothing left but kill him.

It's also kind of crappy the the only thing resembling censure you receive for killing him is that, if your a HNM who kills him, Anora won't marry you - which is understandable on her part, but hardly any kind of true censure from the nobility of Ferelden.  (Not sure if she'll still marry Alistair if HE kills Loghain, as I've never played that).

Ultimately, the game makes us choose between kill him or make him a Warden.  Bad game mechanics, unfortunately.

Well, I believe in redemption. So I guess I'm lucky.

And having his SOUL destroyed in addition to DYING, isn't a punishment? Really?

Anora will not marry her father's murderer. Be it the Warden or Alistair.

It assumes you believe in a soul.  It also assumes his "soul" is destroyed by killing Archie without having done the DR.  Because without those, his "soul" is not destroyed, is it?  For that matter, if he doesn't kill Archie with the DR having been turned down, he doesn't even die.
 
And I think that's the difference between you and I.  You believe in redemption, which is admirable.  I don't, which I suppose is less admirable, but there it is.

Doesn't matter what I believe. In DAO souls exist very obviously. (Hello, the FADE!) And yes, I believe in a soul. Always have. Sorry to hear you do not believe in mercy and redemption. But that is your right.

[Persephone]

Elhanan wrote...

Even if one accepts the yield, then Alistair raises the points of the other crimes, Riordin steps in for another option, and you are still left with those two choices: death or the Joining. Thus, even by adhering to the rules of the Landsmeet, the final judgement is in the hands of the Warden, IMO.

And who made the Warden judge, jury and executioner all in one?

[TJPags]

Persephone wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Persephone wrote...

4) "I don't hate Loghain. I execute a criminal." Humility is a virtue. Or used to be. As is mercy. Like I said, the words "I do not hate....I execute a criminal!" are very telling.

You think every executioner hates the person they kill?  It's a job.

Me, I have no problem judging criminals, sentencing them, or carrying out the sentence.  I think the world is better off withOUT a lot of criminals.

I hope my words are "telling".  I'm also not particularly concerned with what they're "telling" you.

1) Oh, you/your Warden are as unbiased as a commissioned executioner? Nice fairy tale.

2) Glad you never get to play God, jury, judge and executioner in real life.

3) I am not asking you to be concerned re: how I read what you are saying. But maybe you could agree to disagree without a condescending sentence in the end that negates the whole "agree to disagree" bit.

1) you misread what I said, which you often seem to do.
2) Agreed.
3)Perhaps you could try that as well.

[TJPags]

Persephone wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Even if one accepts the yield, then Alistair raises the points of the other crimes, Riordin steps in for another option, and you are still left with those two choices: death or the Joining. Thus, even by adhering to the rules of the Landsmeet, the final judgement is in the hands of the Warden, IMO.

And who made the Warden judge, jury and executioner all in one?

So basically, because nobody says "Warden, judge this man", you should NOT execute him?