248 réponses à ce sujet

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...

I think NuclearSerendipity states the issue clearly so maybe we should stay within those bounds. Forgive me if I appear to have strayed a little.

Hey, considering how much I have strayed from the original topic, I should be the one asking you for forgiveness.

[Face of Evil]

Persephone wrote...

 do not mind the ambition. I mind that he is being dishonest about it. That he is manipulating and using an already psychologically scarred young man as well as a probably equally psychologically scarred young Warden to achieve his goal while acting like a concerned guardian. No such pretense from Anora. She only betrays you if you betray her first.

That's crap. I never betrayed Anora at Howe's estate and she still stabbed me in the back. I was willing to give her the crown and she still stabbed me in the back, just because I said her bastard of a father deserved justice.

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...

NuclearSerendipity wrote...

Glaucon wrote...

Well I suppose it depends on how you use the word violence. If found guilty of crime punishable by incarceration you are not politely asked to pop over to prison? "Take him down" as a judge might say. Law is a polite form of violence.

I'm not sure it's about how we use the word violence, but rather of how what we're considering violence is used. I didn't mean that society shouldn't resort to violence, as it does with crimes' punishments. arrests (when necessary) and what not. I just meant that violence shouldn't be the means through which political and juridic decisions are made. Sure, once one's found guilty he might even be punished with death, but whether or not he's guilty isn't decided by a duel between defense and prosecution, in which the jury would decide who was the best combatant while eating hot dogs and drinking Coke.

but that's an is to an ought is it not?  How things are and how they should be depend on many things -- to the extent of being beyond the scope of a compact argument.

Yes, but that's also the whole point: things doesn't seem to me to be as portrayed in the Landsmeet or in NWN 2's trial. It's not believable, IMO, because it hardly seems that any society could subsist functioning in such a way: like I said before, I know of no historical example that works quite like that, at least in socio-political context as the one that DAO aims to portrait. Like I said, I might be wrong, but I'm not criticizing NWN 2 and DAO because I don't think that, idealistically, things shouldn't be the way they portrait. Rather, I'm criticizing precisely because it doesn't seems realistic to portray trials and elections that way - they just wouldn't work if they functioned like that.

Modifié par NuclearSerendipity, 22 novembre 2010 - 11:21 .

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...

NuclearSerendipity wrote...

Glaucon wrote...

Well I suppose it depends on how you use the word violence. If found guilty of crime punishable by incarceration you are not politely asked to pop over to prison? "Take him down" as a judge might say. Law is a polite form of violence.

I'm not sure it's about how we use the word violence, but rather of how what we're considering violence is used. I didn't mean that society shouldn't resort to violence, as it does with crimes' punishments. arrests (when necessary) and what not. I just meant that violence shouldn't be the means through which political and juridic decisions are made. Sure, once one's found guilty he might even be punished with death, but whether or not he's guilty isn't decided by a duel between defense and prosecution, in which the jury would decide who was the best combatant while eating hot dogs and drinking Coke.

but that's an is to an ought is it not?  How things are and how they should be depend on many things -- to the extent of being beyond the scope of a compact argument.

Again, my problem is forgetting to make somethings clearer: I meant that violence shouldn't be the institucionalized means through which political and juridic decisions are made. Of course,  I agree that, realistically, violence is often the means to make those decisions. I don't agree that, realistically, they're the institutionalized means to do so.

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...

And the death sentence was repealed in the UK precisely on those grounds.  I agree with most of the respondents to the thread.  The issue is complex and idealisations distort realities -- as they always will.

Specifically to the game.  The Landsmeet was terrible, contradicted and eventually reduced to hack and slash.  It was pathetic -- I can think of harsher words but that would be impolite.

I'm not sure of how this relates to what I'm saying... I meant precisely that I'm not talking about punishments, whether or not they should be violent or not, so I don't think the death sentence comes into discussion. Also, the reasons why I'm criticizing the Landsmeet and NWN 2's trial aren't idealistic reasons of thinking things shouldn't be like that, but rather, realistic reasons, of thinking that things aren't like that. It doesn't seems realistic to me that a politic or juridic institution in the context that DAO aims to set would have violence as an institutionalized means to make decisions. Perhaps I'm not clear with what I mean by "institutionalized". I guess it's somewhat close to "official": it doesn't seems realistic to me that violence would be the official means through which political and juridic decisions are made, even if it's clear and realistic that they are quite often the unofficial means through which those decisions are made. I can hardly see how societies such as Ferelden or Neverwinter would function, realistically, should their political and juridic matters be ultimately and oficially decided by violence. I fail to see how things wouldn't turn chaotic in such a situation. Even if unofficial violence plays a huge role in that kind of decision, it doesn't means that official violence wouldn't be much worse: because then you would be actually allowing those matters to be decided by violence, and there would be nothing one could do against it or to prevent it.

I don't think we're really disagreeing at the end of it. I think it's just that I'm not managing to make myself clear, and I'm really sorry for that :/

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...

Well a death sentence is a violent juridic decision and Loghain (to my understanding) is essentially given a death sentence in accordance with Ferelden law? The law of the Landsmeet.

aren't or weren't? This is a fantasy realm, even though we naturally apply our current zeitgeist to it. I find it feasible that the world of Ferelden would operate in that manner and I see only nuances in the difference between the fantasy of Ferelden and the Reality of Earth.

I see what you mean, and I thought after posting that this might be the confusion that's going on. We're not talking really about the same things when we talk about decision. You mean the content of the decision. I mean the process of making it and the grounds on which you make it.

Let me elaborate: It's one thing to decide that you should punish one by death, that is, deciding to apply violence. It's another thing entirely to reach that decision by applying or resorting to violence. It's one thing that, after a trial, you find one guilty and therefore decides to punish him with death. It's another thing deciding that, because the accused beat the crap out of the judge, he shouldn't be punished.

To elaborate even further: you are talking about violence as a consequence of a decision. I'm talking of violence as the grounds to make that decision in the first place and, moreover, as official grounds to making juridical and political decisions. I hope I made myself clearer now...

And finally, both aren't and weren't. Again, I'm willing to admit I'm mistaken, due to my lack of historical knowledge, but I can't seem to find one example that would make it realistic that societies structured such as Ferelden  and in a given context as theirs would make their political decisions on a ultimately officially violent basis, while still managing not to fall into chaos. I don't think I'm applying our current Zeitgeist to the game, but rather my historical outlook which is, admitedly, a limited one. Nevertheless, one can think about Greece, about Rome, and other past societies in which violence wasn't official grounds for political and juridic decisions. And while there might have been many different criterions to make such decisions, whether they be rational or religious or what not, there hardly seems to be any society which existed in a time and context somewhat equivalent to that of Ferelden's and was structured similarly to it that made their decisions based oficially on the outcome of violent process... But if someone can show me otherwise, I'm willing to admit it.

Modifié par NuclearSerendipity, 23 novembre 2010 - 12:30 .

[Sarah1281]

Face of Evil wrote...

Persephone wrote...

 do not mind the ambition. I mind that he is being dishonest about it. That he is manipulating and using an already psychologically scarred young man as well as a probably equally psychologically scarred young Warden to achieve his goal while acting like a concerned guardian. No such pretense from Anora. She only betrays you if you betray her first.

That's crap. I never betrayed Anora at Howe's estate and she still stabbed me in the back. I was willing to give her the crown and she still stabbed me in the back, just because I said her bastard of a father deserved justice.

Yes, well you're also the person stupid enough to tell her that when she's asking that her father be spared if it is at all practical to do so (even while acknowledging that it may not be) that even if every single other person including Alistair in the room was willing to let him be exiled you'd still make a point of killing him. Any answer BUT the one you gave does not result in a betrayal. Even a 'well, it's up to the Landsmeet' one does not get you a betrayal.

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...

NuclearSerendipity wrote...

I see what you mean, and I thought after posting that this might be the confusion that's going on. We're not talking really about the same things when we talk about decision. You mean the content of the decision. I mean the process of making it and the grounds on which you make it.

Yes, I think you have it, that is the source of interference.  I do indeed tend to focus on content or over philosophise arguments.  The process and the grounds are as important though.

Here's what I propose to do:  I'm going to give this greater consideration and post a more robust response either in the morning (GMT) or later this evening.  I'll try to focus on those three aspects of the Landsmeet and endeavour to explain where I think it in error or where it seems un-reasonable.  I hope this is to the satisfaction of everyone.

No such thing as overphilosophizing when discussing a subject as this one, and It's far from me to criticize you for such.  Specially when it isn't the problem... It's just that we didn't understand clearly what each other meant.

Sounds like fun, though. I probably should be going right now too, but I'm looking forward to seeing your reply tomorrow.

Modifié par NuclearSerendipity, 23 novembre 2010 - 03:34 .

[Addai]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Due to ignorance, not hypocracy.

(Husband)

O'H COME ON.

You're talking about hypocrisy....   Is going on and on talking about how bad the Orlesians are (because of their flagarant violation of human rights) then selling the elves into slavery because in war "the ends justifies the means", ruling like a tyrant and giving a Arl Howe aka Marquis de Sade, a blank check not hypocrisy?

When discussing these kinds of things it is always useful to make a disclaimer about how you don't support slavery or selling the elves into slavery or else people accuse you of doing just that.

That said, I don't see that as hypocrisy. Maybe if Loghain's entire platform on why the Orlesians were evil was because they sold elves into slavery and then he did just that he'd be a hypocrite. Still, he did not sell them into slavery in order to watch himself grow rich or because he saw them as sub-human. He sold them into slavery because he needed money to finish the civil war and then deal with both the Orlesians (which admittedly he might not have needed to do right that second but we don't know what would have happened had) and the darkpsawn.

The Orlesians went around forcing nobles from their homes, letting chevaliers go on a mad raping spree, raising taxes simply to force freeholders off of their land, ect. not out of necessity or what they could have seen as necessity. Regardless of if Loghain could have found another way, he thought selling the elves was the only option he had to get that funding he needed. The Orlesians just saw themselves as superior to the backwater Fereldens and in the case of the chevaliers they treat their OWN people like that.

Desperate measures taken in war are hardly the same as peace-time measures undertaken out of ethnocentrism, resentment, and the fact that they could get away with it.

(Husband)

It seems like hypocrisy along the lines of the worst cases/depiction of the McCarthy Era.    You are afraid of the Commies coming in and taking away our liberties.    How do you fight this insidious conspiracy?   Why establish a police state of course!    That is essentially what Loghain is doing.   It's almost like he's intentionally becoming the poster boy for the adage that "You become what you hate".

Modifié par Addai67, 23 novembre 2010 - 04:02 .

[IanPolaris]

CalJones wrote...

What a lot of people don't get is that, when you rescue Anora, she is disguised and tells you why - she is worried for her life. If you blow her cover by telling Cauthrien "I'm here to rescue Anora - look, here she is! *point*" then you're doing exactly what she's asked you not to. So she covers her arse, so to speak. Can't blame her for that, at all.

I know I am jumping here very late, but Queen Anora does in fact betray the Warden when you rescue her, no matter what.  That was proved conclusively several months ago from the timeline evidence alone.  Specifically, there is no other way other than Queen Anora betraying you that Ser Cauthrien could have possibly made it to Howe's Foyer in time to arrest you "for the murder of Arl Howe and his men-at-arms" within 10 mins after you've done so, especially since not even Howe's own men realize it's happened yet.

Queen Anora betrays you and plays both sides against the middle to try to retain power.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 26 novembre 2010 - 11:59 .

[IanPolaris]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Of course, that's an interesting case because besides the fact that the DN totally doesn't get a chance to fight a Proving to prove that she didn't kill Trian, this appears to be a case of a Proving be used to decide law as once he won this Proving he was deemed innocent of fratricide. I guess it could be a matter of there not being enough evidence either way and Darvianak fought someone who accused him of fratricide in a Proving and so once he won no one wanted to charge him for fratricide in the Assembly (which was how the DN's fratricide conviction was settled and the only weird part about that was how quickly it was decided and that you weren't allowed to testify on your own behalf).

Actually I have a completely different take on it.  Under long standing Dwarven Law and Custom, the DN was entitled and should have had a formal trial before the assembly, and if I remember my Dwarven usages and customs correctly, at this point the DN could have challenged Bhelen to a Proving to determine who the ancestors favored since (let's face it) the evidence against the DN was sketchy at best.

Prince Bhelen used his allies in the assembly to override this and King Endrin let him in order to preserve the Aeducan name much to the disgust of Lord Harrowmount (and other traditional nobles).

-Polaris

[Sarah1281]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Of course, that's an interesting case because besides the fact that the DN totally doesn't get a chance to fight a Proving to prove that she didn't kill Trian, this appears to be a case of a Proving be used to decide law as once he won this Proving he was deemed innocent of fratricide. I guess it could be a matter of there not being enough evidence either way and Darvianak fought someone who accused him of fratricide in a Proving and so once he won no one wanted to charge him for fratricide in the Assembly (which was how the DN's fratricide conviction was settled and the only weird part about that was how quickly it was decided and that you weren't allowed to testify on your own behalf).

Actually I have a completely different take on it.  Under long standing Dwarven Law and Custom, the DN was entitled and should have had a formal trial before the assembly, and if I remember my Dwarven usages and customs correctly, at this point the DN could have challenged Bhelen to a Proving to determine who the ancestors favored since (let's face it) the evidence against the DN was sketchy at best.

Prince Bhelen used his allies in the assembly to override this and King Endrin let him in order to preserve the Aeducan name much to the disgust of Lord Harrowmount (and other traditional nobles).

-Polaris

I'm not sure how that's a different take. I know that the DN was supposed to have a trial (Lord Harrowmont and Gorim actually tell you this). We don't know if Vollney fought his Proving instead of a trial, during his trial, or after his trial if he was found innocent but people still gossiped about him. The DN, like I said, does not get the chance to fight a Proving to prove their innocence regardless of whether this would have been done instead of a trial, during the trial, or after the trial. If Vollney fought his Proving instead of a trial it could be, like I said, because there wasn't enough evidence to try him with but everyone said he did it and once he won that Proving the matter was laid to rest.

Was the part you disagreed with was when I said that the DN's charge of fratricide was settled in the Assembly? It kind of was. From what we know, the matter was taken to the Assembly and Bhelen immediately announced that you were obviously guilty and moved to have you exiled which was quickly passed. This was not a full and proper trial since you weren't even allowed to show up and speak in your own defense but it was still - as I said - settled by the Assembly though far quicker than these things usually were and without you being allowed to testify.

So yeah, I still don't see how your post disagreed with anything I said.

[BHRamsay]

IanPolaris wrote...

CalJones wrote...

What a lot of people don't get is that, when you rescue Anora, she is disguised and tells you why - she is worried for her life. If you blow her cover by telling Cauthrien "I'm here to rescue Anora - look, here she is! *point*" then you're doing exactly what she's asked you not to. So she covers her arse, so to speak. Can't blame her for that, at all.

I know I am jumping here very late, but Queen Anora does in fact betray the Warden when you rescue her, no matter what.  That was proved conclusively several months ago from the timeline evidence alone.  Specifically, there is no other way other than Queen Anora betraying you that Ser Cauthrien could have possibly made it to Howe's Foyer in time to arrest you "for the murder of Arl Howe and his men-at-arms" within 10 mins after you've done so, especially since not even Howe's own men realize it's happened yet.

Queen Anora betrays you and plays both sides against the middle to try to retain power.

-Polaris

You really can't bang on Anora for that.  That sort of thing is just politics and more or less understandable from her point of view. If you want to rip on Anora you can go with my favouite 8itch which is she apperantly sat around for a year twiddling her thumbs while her country went to hell before it dawned on her to ask her dad what happened at Ostagar. She then has the gaul to tell the Warden that she is what Ferelden needs to lead it through the curent crisis.

[IanPolaris]

BHRamsay wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

CalJones wrote...

What a lot of people don't get is that, when you rescue Anora, she is disguised and tells you why - she is worried for her life. If you blow her cover by telling Cauthrien "I'm here to rescue Anora - look, here she is! *point*" then you're doing exactly what she's asked you not to. So she covers her arse, so to speak. Can't blame her for that, at all.

I know I am jumping here very late, but Queen Anora does in fact betray the Warden when you rescue her, no matter what.  That was proved conclusively several months ago from the timeline evidence alone.  Specifically, there is no other way other than Queen Anora betraying you that Ser Cauthrien could have possibly made it to Howe's Foyer in time to arrest you "for the murder of Arl Howe and his men-at-arms" within 10 mins after you've done so, especially since not even Howe's own men realize it's happened yet.

Queen Anora betrays you and plays both sides against the middle to try to retain power.

-Polaris

You really can't bang on Anora for that.  That sort of thing is just politics and more or less understandable from her point of view. If you want to rip on Anora you can go with my favouite 8itch which is she apperantly sat around for a year twiddling her thumbs while her country went to hell before it dawned on her to ask her dad what happened at Ostagar. She then has the gaul to tell the Warden that she is what Ferelden needs to lead it through the curent crisis.

Why not?  If you risk your neck to help Anora and she puts you into a trap, I'd be upset with her if I were the Warden.  Because of that, unless I intend to marry her myself as a Cousland, it's the tower for her every single damn time.  She is counting on you being too stupid to notice that Ser Cautherian's timing is impossible unless she betrays you and the difference in her reaction between if you kill Ser Cauthrian and allow yourself to be arrested is....telling.

-Polaris

[Ryzaki]

I just killed Ser Cautherine and yeah her reaction was a little odd. (I even killed her with an All Warrior Party WHOOT!).


Edit: Well all warriors and one archer rogue (Leliana) who died almost immediately >_> 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 novembre 2010 - 01:02 .

[NuclearSerendipity]

Glaucon wrote...



Oh dear I forgot about this thread.  Looks like I'm going to have to get some books out for NuclearSerendipity.

Haha, no worries  I haven't been following the forums these last days and I probably won't for still some more, due to some college papers that are due this week... So, if you have any books that can help me with that, I'd appreciate it.