374 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Nero is still one of the more interesting emperors to study.

Crazy and egotistical, but still fun to study.

Let's not forget Caligula.

[Giggles_Manically]

Oh yeah that guy was over the top too.



Nero still has the best death line ever:

What an artist the world is losing.

[Joy Divison]

Persephone wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Some call Caesar a bloody tyrant who committed genocide. Others call him a genius, a visionary, the greatest of all Romans.

I'd say both, assuming that "greatest" means "most influential."

As for Loghain, he's a paranoid fool and a joke of a politician. However, he's still an excellent general and I dislike the idea of killing him out of hand. Hence my saving him.

Greatest not just meaning the most influential. He was a brilliant orator, strategist, general, writer etc. A genius. And I dunno if casualities of conquest can be called genocide. Was Alexander the Great guilty of genocide too?

He was however a heavy handed politician and should have remained a general.

By today's standards, Caesar, Alexander, and I'd venture every conqueror pre 1900 (as well as a fair amount after) would be labeled as genocide.  Most of those casualties of conquests die because they live in a city that resisted, are sold off to slavery if they are young enough or deemed desireable for a particular skill, or simply disappear via privation having their lands seized.

Though the key is "by today's standards," if someone wants to peg Caesar guilty of genocide, they'd better accept some future moralistic judgment labelled on them as a murderer for eating steak, driving automobiles or something.

Totally agree w/ the last line

[Xilizhra]

if someone wants to peg Caesar guilty of genocide, they'd better accept some future moralistic judgment labelled on them as a murderer for eating steak, driving automobiles or something

Gladly, and I'll try to make as many amends as possible.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Genocide =/= mass murder / killings. Genocide is an attempt, whether successful or not, to wipe out a people / culture / community...etc completely (or partially) from a specific region or in general. Caesar, Alexander and others did not commit acts of genocide, but mass killings.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 février 2011 - 10:24 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Genocide is seeking to KILL everyone of a group.

Alexander and Caesar wanted to CONQUER them.

[ejoslin]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Genocide =/= mass murder / killings. Genocide is an attempt, whether successful or not, to wipe out a people / culture / community...etc completely (or partially) from a specific region or in general. Caesar, Alexander and others did not commit acts of genocide, but mass killings.

Hmmm, just reading the Bible reveals that this (genocide) can be, in fact, considered a righteous thing to do.  I'm talking about military battles, not when God personally did the wiping out.

I really have nothing to contribute to this conversation, but I thought I'd throw that point out there.  

Modifié par ejoslin, 08 février 2011 - 10:27 .

[Xilizhra]

I... would contest that. Tremendously.

[ejoslin]

Xilizhra wrote...

I... would contest that. Tremendously.

You would contest that the Bible has stories where God commands His people to wipe out populaces that worship differently, even the men, women, and children?  And that this is considered righteous?

The Bible even has a story about God sending bears to kill children for making fun of a bald guy.  /shrug.  There are a lot of ugly stories there.

Modifié par ejoslin, 08 février 2011 - 10:33 .

[Xilizhra]

Oh, considered righteous. That's different.



Just that the Old Testament God is as evil as all hell, ironically.

[ejoslin]

Xilizhra wrote...

Oh, considered righteous. That's different.

Just that the Old Testament God is as evil as all hell, ironically.

BLASPHEMY!  *grin*  

My point was, the book that we all point towards as the basis of our morality in today's age does, in fact, support genocide.  Both directly from the Divine, and indirectly through His orders.

[KnightofPhoenix]

ejoslin wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Genocide =/= mass murder / killings. Genocide is an attempt, whether successful or not, to wipe out a people / culture / community...etc completely (or partially) from a specific region or in general. Caesar, Alexander and others did not commit acts of genocide, but mass killings.

Hmmm, just reading the Bible reveals that this (genocide) can be, in fact, considered a righteous thing to do.  I'm talking about military battles, not when God personally did the wiping out.

I really have nothing to contribute to this conversation, but I thought I'd throw that point out there.  

Yes, of course. They were given the green right to execute "herem" on Canaanite populations.
It offends our modern sensibilities, but it was considered not only ok by them, but ordained by God.

Eh, there are interesting theories that ******-erectus might have been victims of a genocide prepetrated by ******-sapiens.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 février 2011 - 10:38 .

[Addai]

Boy, if the mods were looking at threads in this forum anymore, this would be locked in 3...2...



As my non-snarky answer @ USArmyParatrooper: The character of Loghain, and the Origins story, is more interesting if you accept the premise that he had reasons that he believed were good and justifable for everything he did. If people prefer a cartoon villain, you can fit him into that mold, but I don't think it's the best fit nor the most satisfying story.

[Archonsg]

ejoslin wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I... would contest that. Tremendously.

You would contest that the Bible has stories where God commands His people to wipe out populaces that worship differently, even the men, women, and children?  And that this is considered righteous?

The Bible even has a story about God sending bears to kill children for making fun of a bald guy.  /shrug.  There are a lot of ugly stories there.

Not to mention a "righteous" man whom essentially said "Don't touch these boys, here, take my two daugthers instead. Do anything to them!"

But....
Back to Anora.

I (the player) have a love hate thing with her to be honest. Love her for her brains (her body after all is more or less the same as everyone else, even Wynn's. Now there's a hot elderly lady ) but hate her penchant to use and abuse people around her. Whether or not she betrayed you when you first meet her is up in the air, but damn, she sure makes it hard to see her other then a political **** out to grab power at anyone's expense.

That said, my various characters almost all hate her. All but the one exception whom himself is a Machiavellian SOB bent on reclaiming his family's right to rule and hey, if it means bedding the barren witch, so be it.

Modifié par Archonsg, 08 février 2011 - 11:09 .

[Sarah1281]

As for Loghain... yes, Orlais wants to conquer Ferelden again; this assumption I have no problem with. However, the Grey Wardens were not, I think, acting as agents of Celene; they genuinely knew there was a Blight and wanted to stop it.

Say that's true. The Orlesian Wardens still weren't offering to come alone, they wanted to bring four legions of chevaliers with them. Are we really supposed to trust twice the number of chevaliers that Loghain defeated at River Dane to not conquer the country once the Blight was defeated?

[Xilizhra]

They'd refuse to come in without the chevaliers?

[Sarah1281]

Xilizhra wrote...

They'd refuse to come in without the chevaliers?

We don't know. Loghain points out that they ask to bring with them the chevaliers as if that's the reason why allowing the Wardens is impossible. He doesn't try to compromise with Cailan (in our hearing) by suggesting that just the GWs come and the chevaliers stay outside which would be quite reasonable since even though he doesn't like the Wardens or think they're necessary, they are already in the country and a handful of Wardens would be easier dealt with than hundreds if not thousands of Orlais' best troops. I think that if the GW would refuse to come it would probably be at Celene's orders but they are quite politicized in Orlais and might not have been able to just ignore her and come anyway like Riordan did. In Awakening, you find out that you didn't have more Orleisan troops both because Ferelden needs to feel that this is a Ferelden order and because Celene's still pissed about Loghain not letting her troops in.

Fear of the GWs and their chevaliers could also explain the scapegoating. He needed to keep public opinion against the Wardens so no one would seriously think of going with Cailan's plan and letting all those chevaliers into the country.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Also Riordan mentions no attempts by the Wardens to initiate a diplomatic overture with Loghain and suggest that they come alone without Orlesian legions. They could have done it, but there is no indication that they did, otherwise you'd think Riordan would know.

[Augustei]

wasn't Nero a dirty scrotem eater?? Who relieved times greatest general and brittains greatest Governor from his post.... Greatest from Ronan prospective lol. I hate nero

[LadyBri]

On the subject of Anora, I very rarely pick her because she is so sneaky, self-serving, and untrustworthy. Also, I still remember my first Landsmeet where she accepts that I will support Alistair and then she sweeps in and stabs me in the back.



After more playthroughs, I think the biggest thing that irks me about Anora is her willingness to sell out her father just to grab at the throne. I do believe the "Rescue the Queen" is a setup, mostly due to Cauthrien's oh-so-timely intervention, and I don't believe Loghain would be so oblivious as to not know his daughter was being held captive without saving her.



And granted, Anora does not have to know that I intend to kill Loghain if the Landsmeet swings my way, but she has to know at least some of the crimes I will use as evidence against him. Some sort of execution on either side seems pretty inevitable, but if I promise I will support her she totally denounces her father in front of the nobles then seems surprised when I insist he gets executed.



She has to know that was a risk, and it just makes me dislike her even more because she gives him up to further her own power then is so shocked when he is killed.

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

I mean seriously she kills all the epic stuff leading up to the final battle.. Her speech most likely killed morale something fierce. The speech right before the final battle made me and most likely the other soldiers go from "We might win this" to "F#*k we are all gonna die"

Anora isn't used to giving speeches right before a battle, but she's geared in armor and apparently is fighting with the rest to beat back the darkspawn. Not to mention Anora is the only ruler who can get the Magi boon recognized without the use of mods.

XxDeonxX wrote...

If a Monarch cant give epic speeches why would people fight by their side. Even her very brief adressing to the landsmeet when she becomes queen would make me doubt my descision to suport her. Alistair's speech on the other hand before the final battle is awesome and a good morale booster. Making you think "Damn this is epic, We can do this! Hell yeah!"

Actually, Anora handles herself fairly well during the Landsmeet, and clearly speaks much easier without having to yell. She seems to choose her words carefully, and Alistair fumbles a bit in certain outcomes at the Landsmeet while Anora is an articulate speaker.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Plus if she was truly a great queen and would be better then Alistair.. Then why the hell am I needed to get her on her own damn throne. Why am I needed to unify the nobility to fight the blight? If she is really a good queen then why the hell is half the country devistated by the blight?

Loghain is in command of the armies, and clearly half of the bannorn follow him rather than Eamon or Tegan because he's a legend who freed Ferelden from Orlesian occupation.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Why Is there acts of Slavery being commited in the alienage which she doesn't even know about? Shes a terrible queen.

Anora wants to build a university and can restore the royal coffers, while Alistair recognizes the needs of the elves and places the Elder on the royal court to give them a voice. Putting them together has always seemed the most ideal outcome for Ferelden, considering that the Cousland King-Consort would still vanish into thin air one day.

[Sarah1281]

Also, I still remember my first Landsmeet where she accepts that I will support Alistair and then she sweeps in and stabs me in the back.

What did you really expect? She's heard all about unhardened Alistair from Cailan and I think most of us can agree that unhardened Alistair might as well not even be king for all the ruling he actually does. Anora's been raised to be queen all her life. That's what she knows, that's what she's good at (not perfect, yes, yes, elves). It might have been *nicer* had she told you that she would be supporting her father at the Landsmeet but I don't think it would be unreasonable for her to fear that you or Eamon would prevent her from attending it if you knew what she was going to do.

And granted, Anora does not have to know that I intend to kill Loghain if the Landsmeet swings my way, but she has to know at least some of the crimes I will use as evidence against him. Some sort of execution on either side seems pretty inevitable, but if I promise I will support her she totally denounces her father in front of the nobles then seems surprised when I insist he gets executed.

Anora is willing to face reality. All she wants is that if a reasonable alternative to death is presented, you go with that option. Riordan speaks up and offers conscription into the Wardens. That sounds reasonable to her and everyone outside of Alistair and maybe the Warden would accept that. She knows he has to be stopped but she still doesn't want him to die if there's another option.

[Thor Rand Al]

Only one reason for her to sit on the throne. For my male Cousland to rule beside her. At least he knows that the country will be ruled fairly, (hopefully) lol. Or I have Anora sit on the throne if I want Alistair to go with me to the Wardens. But thats rare too. Usually it's Alistair on throne.

[HighMoon]

LadyBri wrote...

On the subject of Anora, I very rarely pick her because she is so sneaky, self-serving, and untrustworthy. Also, I still remember my first Landsmeet where she accepts that I will support Alistair and then she sweeps in and stabs me in the back.

I don't get what you're complaining about... aren't all politicians like that?

[LadyBri]

Golden-Rose wrote...

LadyBri wrote...

On the subject of Anora, I very rarely pick her because she is so sneaky, self-serving, and untrustworthy. Also, I still remember my first Landsmeet where she accepts that I will support Alistair and then she sweeps in and stabs me in the back.

I don't get what you're complaining about... aren't all politicians like that?

Ha!  Too true - but, I think this is why on most playthroughs unless I am aiming for a specific type of ending I make sure Alistair is king.  Even hardened Alistair may not seem the optimal choice, but at least his intentions are good. I am always left thinking Anora just wants power for the sake of power, and while this doesn't necessarily mean she becomes a tyrant, I just still don't trust her.