4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

There's also the aftermath of the death of Seamus and Sister Petrice in the Chantry... you can't loot anything there, either, unless you grab it during the fight.

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

...She deserved to be fired yes. She didn't deserve to be blown up.

I realize this is not a popular position, but I think she did deserve it.

Nowhere do we see Elthina considering that she needs to retire.  You see a codex suggest that some people think she might be unable to do her job, but you don't see NPC's calling for her to be removed.  

Instead, what we see is a Grand Cleric who is at best just flat out ineffective, or at worst incompetent, who doesn't appear to be going anywhere any time soon. 

We can tell that she's old, but not necessarily so old that she's got one foot in the funeral pyre.  So she's the Grand Cleric you get to deal with for the foreseeable future. 

So.  Grand Cleric is aware that her knight-commander and templars are abusing mages, and breaking Chantry law.  She states flat out that she does not approve of Meredith's methods.  She states also that she would not wish to be a mage in the Gallows. But the only response she ever has is that she can't take sides, and that the best course of action is to sit back and see what the Maker decides to let happen.

Sorry, I don't think her death was murder.  I don't deny that Anders committed an act of terrorism that probably resulted in innocent deaths.  But, for instance, if it had somehow been that Grand Cleric Elthina had been the only person in that Chantry?  I'd call his action completely and totally justified.  An act of war, justified homicide, whatever. But not murder.  

Why?  Because, through her inaction, the Grand Cleric was complicit in the abuses that were going on.  Even getting completely away from the need for a mage revolution, on its own, entire dysfunctioning self, Kirkwall was a huge pile of corruption, and her refusal to discipline Meredith makes Elthina equally guilty.  There's more than enough evidence in game to convince me that Elthina at the very least heard the talk going on around her.  Even if you could say that she absolutely, positively, didn't know that Alrik was Tranquil-ing mages so that he could rape them, the only way that she could be utterly blind to the templars' excesses and abuses would be if she were deaf and blind.  Which would just be another sign that she bloody well needs to step down or be relieved of duty.  And, again, we do see that Elthina does appear to have at least some awareness of Meredith's extremes: "I do not approve of the Knight Commanders methods." That is a direct quote from Elthina herself.  One example among many that she damn well knew what was going on around her, and was entirely willing to let it continue, because she was determined to be neutral.

I've said it before, but apparently it bears repeating:  Neutrality is not synonymous with finding middle ground, making compromise, or seeing both sides to a debate.  Neutrality means that you are completely, utterly, staying out of a situation to the point where you don't give a damn what either position is.  And to be neutral means to effectively be siding with the group that has all the power, because that neutrality means that you're giving no support to the group without power and taking none away from the group that has it all.

In this situation, Elthina's position of neutrality is one of the purest expressions of evil that there is, as far as I'm concerned.  She's not innocent, she's not sympathetic.  She's guilty as sin and completely deserving of what happens to her.

Modifié par Silfren, 06 mai 2011 - 08:18 .

[TEWR]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Given her turn as a member of the Chantry working for the status quo, I'd say Leliana played The Warden in Origins. Whether or not she was genuine, she was proactive in stopping the Blight, even though she said the Maker didn't forsake humanity. In contrast, Elthina does nothing, even when Hawke presents her with the facts about the abuse going on (like when he addresses how her name was misused to kidnap Qunari delegates).

Wait, does Leliana's Song establish her as a Chantry covert-ops agent by the very end? I know it tells us of her backstory, but I don't know all the details.

I'll probably download it later tonight and play it. Darkspawn Chronicles I can do without, as fun as it looks.

It establishes how she met the current Divine Justina V.

that much I knew already


But, how do we know she wasa playing the Warden the whole time?

[Silfren]

lrrose wrote...

Anders didn't kill Elthina because he believed she was evil. He killed her to prevent her from getting Meredith and Orsino to create a compromise that would delay the mage-templar war. Speaking of which, how is creating a compromise and trying to talk the Divine out of an Exalted March doing nothing?

For one thing, I never saw so much as a hint that Elthina was trying to find a compromise.  The only thing I ever saw her do was have Orsino forcibly taken back to the Gallows--"gently" she ever so nicely asked--and instruct Meredith to go back to the Gallows like a good girl.  

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...

*snip* 
Sorry, I don't think her death was murder.  I don't deny that Anders committed an act of terrorism that probably resulted in innocent deaths.  But, for instance, if it had somehow been that Grand Cleric Elthina had been the only person in that Chantry?  I'd call his action completely and totally justified.  An act of war, justified homicide, whatever. But not murder.  

Why?  Because, through her inaction, the Grand Cleric was complicit in the abuses that were going on.  Even getting completely away from the need for a mage revolution, on its own, entire dysfunctioning self, Kirkwall was a huge pile of corruption, and her refusal to discipline Meredith makes Elthina equally guilty.  There's more than enough evidence in game to convince me that Elthina at the very least heard the talk going on around her.  Even if you could say that she absolutely, positively, didn't know that Alrik was Tranquil-ing mages so that he could rape them, the only way that she could be utterly blind to the templars' excesses and abuses would be if she were deaf and blind.  Which would just be another sign that she bloody well needs to step down or be relieved of duty.  And, again, we do see that Elthina does appear to have at least some awareness of Meredith's extremes: "I do not approve of the Knight Commanders methods." That is a direct quote from Elthina herself.  One example among many that she damn well knew what was going on around her, and was entirely willing to let it continue, because she was determined to be neutral.

I've said it before, but apparently it bears repeating:  Neutrality is not synonymous with finding middle ground, making compromise, or seeing both sides to a debate.  Neutrality means that you are completely, utterly, staying out of a situation to the point where you don't give a damn what either position is.  And to be neutral means to effectively be siding with the group that has all the power, because that neutrality means that you're giving no support to the group without power and taking none away from the group that has it all.

In this situation, Elthina's position of neutrality is one of the purest expressions of evil that there is, as far as I'm concerned.  She's not innocent, she's not sympathetic.  She's guilty as sin and completely deserving of what happens to her.

Murder by definition is premeditated killing of someone without legal permission (as with executions). That's exactly what Anders did. You may think it's justifable but it will always be murder. 

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/murder
You may think she deserves it.

It's still murder. Just like Anders blowing up the Chantry no matter how justified it may or may not be is terrorism. It doesn't change because someone may or may not deserve it. The word makes no judgement calls on if someone did or did not deserve it. Technically I suppose one could say she as assassinated but that still means she was murdered. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 mai 2011 - 08:26 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Given her turn as a member of the Chantry working for the status quo, I'd say Leliana played The Warden in Origins. Whether or not she was genuine, she was proactive in stopping the Blight, even though she said the Maker didn't forsake humanity. In contrast, Elthina does nothing, even when Hawke presents her with the facts about the abuse going on (like when he addresses how her name was misused to kidnap Qunari delegates).

Wait, does Leliana's Song establish her as a Chantry covert-ops agent by the very end? I know it tells us of her backstory, but I don't know all the details.

I'll probably download it later tonight and play it. Darkspawn Chronicles I can do without, as fun as it looks.

It establishes how she met the current Divine Justina V.

that much I knew already


But, how do we know she wasa playing the Warden the whole time?

It's conjecture.

[lrrose]

Silfren wrote...

lrrose wrote...

Anders didn't kill Elthina because he believed she was evil. He killed her to prevent her from getting Meredith and Orsino to create a compromise that would delay the mage-templar war. Speaking of which, how is creating a compromise and trying to talk the Divine out of an Exalted March doing nothing?

For one thing, I never saw so much as a hint that Elthina was trying to find a compromise.  The only thing I ever saw her do was have Orsino forcibly taken back to the Gallows--"gently" she ever so nicely asked--and instruct Meredith to go back to the Gallows like a good girl.  

She goes back to the Gallows after Orsino's riot, presumably to get the two of them to compromise.

[Killjoy Cutter]

http://dictionary.re...wse/nonfeasance
http://dictionary.re...wse/misfeasance
http://dictionary.re...wse/malfeasance

For reference and thought...

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 06 mai 2011 - 08:22 .

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Murder by definition is premeditated killing of someone without legal permission (as with executions). That's exactly what Anders did. You may think it's justifable but it will always be murder. 

You may think she deserves it.

It's still murder. Just like Anders blowing up the Chantry no matter how justified it may or may not be is terrorism. It doesn't change because someone may or may not deserve it. 

Oh Gods I can't believe I'm resorting to this,but would you then call bin Laden's death murder? Because most people would call it an execution for war crimes, not murder.  But it was most certainly premeditated, so does that make it murder instead? 

Murder also implies that the killed party did not deserve to be killed.  There's a reason why capital punishment is referred to as execution, not murder.  Just as there's a reason why killing in self-defense is not classified as murder.  Hence why I used the phrase "justifiable homicide."  Don't bother throwing definitions at me.  It's as much a legal definition as anything, and what constitutes murder varies accordingly. 

There's a damn good reason why people draw a distinction between--to stick with the game for examples--killing Ser Alrik and killing Ella.  I call killing Ser Alrik justified homicide, not murder, because that raping bastard certainly deserved it.  Killing Ella fits more closely with being called murder, although it also is not so easy to pin down, because you could call it a freak accident--Anders wasn't in control of himself.  This is where we get such phrases as "reckless manslaughter" and what-have-you: because murder is NOT so easily summed up as nothing more than premeditated killing.

Modifié par Silfren, 06 mai 2011 - 08:34 .

[GavrielKay]

Merela wrote...

Now, why they don't nominate someone else more capable for...assisting her in the Templar matter...I guess they just don't care, sadly for the mages.

And generally speaking, it's the "just don't care" attitude that leads to me having precious little sympathy for anyone in the Chantry.  It is a system that leads to abuse because it sees in itself the definition of right.

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Even if you're someone who believes that Elthina was at fault and
deserved to die... what about everyone else killed in and around the
Chantry? Did some random kid there praying for this mother's health
deserve to die? Did random people in Hightown and all over Kirkwall
deserve to have their houses catch fire from the rain of flaming debris?

For myself I've already said I feel bad for the poor guy in the building next door.

I would not have bombed the Chantry left to my own devices.  In fact, I'd probably not have gone with Anders to murder-knife Elthina in her sleep.  Though I would have given the latter more thought. 

I think Elthina deserved to be arrested and brought to trial for crimes against humanity in allowing Meredith and her cronies to abuse the mages in their care.  I believe Meredith, Karras, Alrik and the others should have been on trial right alongside her.  This isn't a game option however.  We can choose whether or not to punish Anders for destroying the Chantry and nearby buildings.  We can choose to join the Templars in exterminating the mages, or we can choose to protect the mages and defy Meredith.

I do not believe Elthina is an innocent bystander.  I believe her refusal to act in any way to stop what's going on in the circle is atrocious.  Platitudes about the Maker's will and the Chantry being a gentle mother do not comfort mages who've been Tranquiled.  They don't stop Alain from getting raped every night.  The system that results in these atrocities is rotten at its core.  Elthina is a part of that corruption.

Talking about compromise between the Templars and mages is difficult.  One side has all the power and no good reason to give it up.  Without Elthina to actually take the mage's side and force Meredith to make some concessions there can be no compromise.  Both sides have to have a bargaining position to force a compromise and that just isn't the situation here.

Elthina may be well loved by the common folk, but her job involves more than that.  She is responsible for the mages that her order keeps under lock and key.  She fails in that utterly regardless of whatever reasons help her sleep at night.

[Silfren]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Given her turn as a member of the Chantry working for the status quo, I'd say Leliana played The Warden in Origins. Whether or not she was genuine, she was proactive in stopping the Blight, even though she said the Maker didn't forsake humanity. In contrast, Elthina does nothing, even when Hawke presents her with the facts about the abuse going on (like when he addresses how her name was misused to kidnap Qunari delegates).

Wait, does Leliana's Song establish her as a Chantry covert-ops agent by the very end? I know it tells us of her backstory, but I don't know all the details.

I'll probably download it later tonight and play it. Darkspawn Chronicles I can do without, as fun as it looks.

It establishes how she met the current Divine Justina V.

that much I knew already


But, how do we know she wasa playing the Warden the whole time?

It's conjecture.

I thought it was pretty clear from the original post containing that statement that it was not intended as anything more than that poster's interpretation of Leliana's dialogue.

[Silfren]

lrrose wrote...

Silfren wrote...

lrrose wrote...

Anders didn't kill Elthina because he believed she was evil. He killed her to prevent her from getting Meredith and Orsino to create a compromise that would delay the mage-templar war. Speaking of which, how is creating a compromise and trying to talk the Divine out of an Exalted March doing nothing?

For one thing, I never saw so much as a hint that Elthina was trying to find a compromise.  The only thing I ever saw her do was have Orsino forcibly taken back to the Gallows--"gently" she ever so nicely asked--and instruct Meredith to go back to the Gallows like a good girl.  

She goes back to the Gallows after Orsino's riot, presumably to get the two of them to compromise.

Presumably. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

GavrielKay wrote...

They don't stop Alain from getting raped every night.

I appoligize if this has been answered, but I missed it -- I've seen the above statement about Alain several times, and I haven't seen where anyone points out the basis of the statement.

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
Oh Gods I can't believe I'm resorting to this,but would you then call bin Laden's death murder? Because most people would call it an execution for war crimes, not murder.  But it was most certainly premeditated, so does that make it murder instead?  

If he had been killed while he was praying peacefully minding his business? Yes it wuld be murder. However he was resisting arrest. It would be a murder I'd go. "eh. Karma." He still would've been murdered though. 

Not to mention unlike Elthina he didn't have the law on his side. So yeah it's murder.

Murder also implies that the killed party did not deserve to be killed.  There's a reason why capital punishment is referred to as execution, not murder.  Just as there's a reason why killing in self-defense is not classified as murder.  Hence why I used the phrase "justifiable homicide."  Don't bother throwing definitions at me.  It's as much a legal definition as anything, and what constitutes murder varies accordingly. 

No it does not. Murder implies intent to kill and sometimes planning. It becomes self defense and blah blah when the injured party does something to deserve being killed. It's why women are still charged for murder for sliting their abusive husbands throat. Self-defense has restrictions. You can't claim using excessive force as self defense. 

There's a damn good reason why people draw a distinctions between--to stick with the game for examples--killing Ser Alrik and killing Ella.  I call killing Ser Alrik justified homicide, not murder, because that raping bastard certainly deserved it.  Killing Ella fits more closely with being called murder, although it also is not so easy to pin down, because you could call it a freak accident--Anders wasn't in control of himself.  This is where we get such phrases as "reckless manslaughter" and what-have-you: because murder is NOT so easily summed up as nothing more than premeditated killing.

Oh for pete's sake

Homicide is the killing of one human by another. The killing of another, homicide, is not a crime unless the circumstances of a particular homicide fall within outlawed behavior. If a homicide is justified or excused, it is not a crime. One of the most recognized justifications is self defense, which provides, in part, that in certain circumstances a person is justified in killing another to protect his own life from a deadly attack.

At various places and times the following may have been considered justifications or excuses for homicide:
Automatism—The defense of automatism holds that one who is unconscious or unaware of their behavior, for instance, someone walking in their sleep, does not have the capacity to commit a crime.
Self-defense and defense of others—Complete defenses. For example of a very popular case on the subject read People v. Goetz.
Defense of dwelling/habitation—Limited to an invader attempting to commit a felony or otherwise hurt someone inside the home, but in some jurisdictions applies to a person's car.
Prevention of a crime—Permitted for "dangerous" felonies.[2]
Privilege of public authority — A person who has public authority to commit an act is not criminally liable.[3]
Insanity defense— There are several tests for legal insanity used in various U.S. states, the two most popular being the M'Naghten Rule and the Model Penal Code test.[4]
M'Naghten Rules[5]
Model Penal Code test—Also known as "substantial capacity"[6]
Irresistible impulse test
Durham rule—Not widely used, New Hampshire being an exception. Also known as the "product test".
Diminished capacity - Not allowed in all jurisdictions; not comprehensive like the M'Naghten Rule and Model Penal Code tests.
Defense of infancy[7]— In some jurisdictions children under the age of 7 are conclusively presumed to be not guilty of criminal homicide, as are children under the age of 14 - but rebuttably so.
Mistake of fact—This defense asserts that a mistake of fact will excuse a criminal charge if it is honestly entertained, based upon reasonable grounds and is of such a nature that the conduct would have been lawful had the facts been as they were supposed to be.
Involuntary intoxication—If a person is drugged, and cannot control their behavior due to the properties of the drugging agent, this operates as a defense for the same reason as automatism.
War—State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 341 (1868), a soldier killing an enemy in battle is usually not criminal, but in some circumstances may be. E.g., a soldier killing a non-combative prisoner of war.

Anders doesn't fall into any of those sections. He committed murder. That's all there is to it. (On the Rivalry Path when he's hijacked by Justice he has an excuse the...automatism one. On the friendship path? No he murdered her. 

Ser Alrik fallls under protecting Ella. It's self-defense. 

Elthina was doing no harm to anyone directly. Indirectly? Yeah she was causing plenty of harm. But directly no. She was murdered.   

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 mai 2011 - 08:45 .

[Sylvianus]

Hawke siding with the mages means he isn't helping the templars murder men, women, and children from the Kirkwall Circle who are not responsible for Anders' actions.

Anders is considered only the straw that broke the camel's back. The action too, the ruling has not only established on this.

Eltina was a helpless victim, Eltina should not have been the first action taken by Anders, Eltina is not the only one to do nothing for mages. Yes it's her job, a job she has never seen as her prerogatives. She knows everything, but still far from the case. If she wants stayed away, why can not let her out of it? Why necessairly Kill her ?

For the symbol. This word was used by Anders. This is not me who invented it. A useful and insignifiant object to his cause.

The problem is Meredith. The problem is the Templar forces in Kirkwall. he did nothing against the first who oppress them, is cowardice. Resistance, I see her in taking a weapon against the oppressors, not indecisive, irresolute people, even in power. It is murder pure and simple. And even though I love your point of view as neutral as possible, those others do not at all what kind of reasoning, it goes much further. And that the majority of what I read.

Mages are fighting for them, and I do not blame them instead, but their views and prices to pay for it, can clearly threaten my interests, and especially what is important to me. From there, it's a matter of consideration. They fight, yes, but I will fight against them if they cross the limits and go too far, even if I say I support their commitment. what I considered to be the case with the gesture that Anders is a factor too, not the primary justification.

The mages of the Circle of Kirkwall are innocent of Anders' actions. One apostate shouldn't condemn an entire population of Circle mages to execution.

The situation was impossible to Kirkwall and you know it. Madmen from all sides, a difficult decision had to be taken. Anders brought things, he is not first responsible for my decision. But the reasons that I read again, no different from what has been defended by the pro-Templars. except maybe yours.

Kirkwall is filled with an almost evil mage percentage higher than the black city. Joke.

The gaming experience and the years past have played on the decision, many mages are corrupted and you don't know that the rest is innocent. You only speculate. I am using a gaming experience of 40 hours with some indications that Kirkall is rotten. Kirkwall in on helmouth.

Yes there are certainly innocent, but it would hurt me to leave many hidden mages who threath Kirkwall.

The Circle mages weren't a threat, they weren't the ones who destroyed the Chantry - Anders was.

The Chantry is just one more factor that overwhelms them. Not all, but I have no choice, all explodes. How not to understand at the same time the anger of the Templars? The high priestess was loved by the people for what it was, it served Kirkwall, except mages yes. But I'm not a mage, is not the way they take my sympathy, the sympathy of the people. They cut the people doing this. The shot ofs Anders has might given ideas to many others in my throught.

He was a known apostate protected by the Champion's reputation, and he killed Grand Cleric Elthina.
As for your comments about destroying other camps, are you trying to say the templars needed "more breathing room"?

I don't understand your question, but I'm not with templars, Kirkwall is speciale, almost mages are crazy, not all, but it's enought. After that, If the Templars were not able to initiate reforms, if mages do not launch massive attacks on the people, by becoming all terrorists or monsters, I would argue their case in Thedas.
If the rebellion involves killing of priests and priestesses helpless in all chantry instead military forces, I fight them. If the Templars decided to obliterate in the circle helpness, I will fight them. And do not talk me about Kirkwall, as I said, Kirkwall is a rotten place and almost all mages are crazy. It was special for me. Yes, Bethany and Merrill are not processed, but it is very little to judge that they aren't a threath

The mags are innocent of Anders' actions, and Meredith's condemnation of an entire population of mages to death for being mages is an act of genocide.

It a necessary massacre, there are many in story; and many justified. Anders has just rushed things, but I already perceived as mages as a threath in Kirkwall. Innocent people are dead, and monsters, corruption and dangerous mages, blood mages hidden. this kind of decision is never easy, even if it is effective in eliminating all of a sudden threat in one shot.

They can be many others Anders.

Now why I chose Meredith, because I thank that she was right, she fighted for the city, mage for themself whatever the price ( Anders and destruction of the chantry ) , but I wanted to Kill her too, because, she goes too far, because of her responsibility in this whole story. I wanted to kill her for Kirkwall, so that all extremists are murdered and that the city found peace after a bloody massacre. I wanted the symbol of madness is removed immediately after the removal of the Magi.

There are no any more extremists in Kirkwall, and it required blood, it's sad, but sometimes the safety of a city is a sal job.

Now mind you I always said that the hero of Da2 is a fool, an idiot who deserves to die. it does nothing and waits until everything blows up, until we have virtually no choice.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 06 mai 2011 - 08:59 .

[GavrielKay]

lrrose wrote...

Anders didn't kill Elthina because he believed she was evil. He killed her to prevent her from getting Meredith and Orsino to create a compromise that would delay the mage-templar war. Speaking of which, how is creating a compromise and trying to talk the Divine out of an Exalted March doing nothing?

What would the compromise be?  Elthina gave no indication that she was going to force Meredith to execute any Templar who'd broken Chantry law and abused the mages.  I didn't see nearly enough strength in Elthina to believe a compromise would be much more than a few paltry concessions ot the mages to keep them from boiling over.  And that's assuming Elthina would have even done that much - which she hadn't done in the 7 years prior.

So, you've got a woman who keeps sending Orsino and Meredith back to their room and then walking away and pretending she accomplished something. 

What compromise would you hope for?  The mages only get raped on Tuesdays and Thursdays.  On Fridays we'll start serving cheesecake.  Why should Anders be excited about the prospect of a compromise with Meredith?

[IanPolaris]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

They don't stop Alain from getting raped every night.

I appoligize if this has been answered, but I missed it -- I've seen the above statement about Alain several times, and I haven't seen where anyone points out the basis of the statement.

Talk to Alain in act 2 and he tells you (very softly) that Ser Alrik  Ser Kerras (edit: oops my mistake) has been going into his room late at night frequently and threatened him with tranquility if he told anyone.

Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 06 mai 2011 - 08:53 .

[Beerfish]

"Elthina may be well loved by the common folk, but her job involves more than that. She is responsible for the mages that her order keeps under lock and key. She fails in that utterly regardless of whatever reasons help her sleep at night."

Not one mention of the first enchanter in your post who is in charge of the mages in his keeping. There was utter failure all around in this situation. She could have easily told Leliana, yeah go get the divine to come on down and bring an army. She actually was trying to stem things, she was crappy at it no doubt about that.

[GavrielKay]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I appoligize if this has been answered, but I missed it -- I've seen the above statement about Alain several times, and I haven't seen where anyone points out the basis of the statement.

It's been mentioned a few times that he'll claim Karras comes to his room every night and threatens him with harm if he reports it.  Also he'll make a more generic statement about Templars coming to his room at night at the end of Best Served Cold, even if Karras is dead

[IanPolaris]

Ryzaki,

Silfren is right. If the target is a valid "enemy" target, you are permitted to kill them even if they aren't actively engaging in hostility at the time and it's not murder. For example in the First Gulf War, an Iraqi Scud Team deliberately targeted an Army barracks in Northern Saudi Arabia. Those soldiers were off duty and not engaged in hostilities at the time.

It was STILL not considered murder. Why? A Barracks is a legit military target.

-Polaris

[Killjoy Cutter]

After 36 pages, I think the reasonble conclusion to draw from this thread is that there are a lot of villains, fools, idiots, and jerks in Kirkwall, spread across all factions.

[Killjoy Cutter]

GavrielKay wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I appoligize if this has been answered, but I missed it -- I've seen the above statement about Alain several times, and I haven't seen where anyone points out the basis of the statement.

It's been mentioned a few times that he'll claim Karras comes to his room every night and threatens him with harm if he reports it.  Also he'll make a more generic statement about Templars coming to his room at night at the end of Best Served Cold, even if Karras is dead

Kerras or Alrik?

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Oh Gods I can't believe I'm resorting to this,but would you then call bin Laden's death murder? Because most people would call it an execution for war crimes, not murder.  But it was most certainly premeditated, so does that make it murder instead?  

If he had been killed while he was praying peacefully minding his business? Yes it wuld be murder. However he was resisting arrest. It would be a murder I'd go. "eh. Karma." He still would've been murdered though. 

Not to mention unlike Elthina he didn't have the law on his side. So yeah it's murder.

Murder also implies that the killed party did not deserve to be killed.  There's a reason why capital punishment is referred to as execution, not murder.  Just as there's a reason why killing in self-defense is not classified as murder.  Hence why I used the phrase "justifiable homicide."  Don't bother throwing definitions at me.  It's as much a legal definition as anything, and what constitutes murder varies accordingly. 

No it does not. Murder implies intent to kill and sometimes planning. It becomes self defense and blah blah when the injured party does something to deserve being killed. It's why women are still charged for murder for sliting their abusive husbands throat. Self-defense has restrictions. You can't claim using excessive force as self defense. 

There's a damn good reason why people draw a distinctions between--to stick with the game for examples--killing Ser Alrik and killing Ella.  I call killing Ser Alrik justified homicide, not murder, because that raping bastard certainly deserved it.  Killing Ella fits more closely with being called murder, although it also is not so easy to pin down, because you could call it a freak accident--Anders wasn't in control of himself.  This is where we get such phrases as "reckless manslaughter" and what-have-you: because murder is NOT so easily summed up as nothing more than premeditated killing.

Oh for pete's sake

Homicide is the killing of one human by another. The killing of another, homicide, is not a crime unless the circumstances of a particular homicide fall within outlawed behavior. If a homicide is justified or excused, it is not a crime. One of the most recognized justifications is self defense, which provides, in part, that in certain circumstances a person is justified in killing another to protect his own life from a deadly attack.

At various places and times the following may have been considered justifications or excuses for homicide:
Automatism—The defense of automatism holds that one who is unconscious or unaware of their behavior, for instance, someone walking in their sleep, does not have the capacity to commit a crime.
Self-defense and defense of others—Complete defenses. For example of a very popular case on the subject read People v. Goetz.
Defense of dwelling/habitation—Limited to an invader attempting to commit a felony or otherwise hurt someone inside the home, but in some jurisdictions applies to a person's car.
Prevention of a crime—Permitted for "dangerous" felonies.[2]
Privilege of public authority — A person who has public authority to commit an act is not criminally liable.[3]
Insanity defense— There are several tests for legal insanity used in various U.S. states, the two most popular being the M'Naghten Rule and the Model Penal Code test.[4]
M'Naghten Rules[5]
Model Penal Code test—Also known as "substantial capacity"[6]
Irresistible impulse test
Durham rule—Not widely used, New Hampshire being an exception. Also known as the "product test".
Diminished capacity - Not allowed in all jurisdictions; not comprehensive like the M'Naghten Rule and Model Penal Code tests.
Defense of infancy[7]— In some jurisdictions children under the age of 7 are conclusively presumed to be not guilty of criminal homicide, as are children under the age of 14 - but rebuttably so.
Mistake of fact—This defense asserts that a mistake of fact will excuse a criminal charge if it is honestly entertained, based upon reasonable grounds and is of such a nature that the conduct would have been lawful had the facts been as they were supposed to be.
Involuntary intoxication—If a person is drugged, and cannot control their behavior due to the properties of the drugging agent, this operates as a defense for the same reason as automatism.
War—State v. Gut, 13 Minn. 341 (1868), a soldier killing an enemy in battle is usually not criminal, but in some circumstances may be. E.g., a soldier killing a non-combative prisoner of war.

Anders doesn't fall into any of those sections. He committed murder. That's all there is to it. (On the Rivalry Path when he's hijacked by Justice he has an excuse the...automatism one. On the friendship path? No he murdered her. 

Ser Alrik fallls under protecting Ella. It's self-defense. 

Elthina was doing no harm to anyone directly. Indirectly? Yeah she was causing plenty of harm. But directly no. She was murdered.  

Sorry, but it's not as straightforward as you think.  What constitutes murder varies from one legal definition to the next.  There's also an argument to be made that the word murder carries an emotional quality.  This is why a person may consider a loved one's death to have been murder while someone else--including someone with legal backing--may call it execution.  

Connotation and popular usage matter as much as denotation for a great many terms we use.  But again, what qualifies as "murder" usually hinges on the legal definition of murder in the nation you're standing in.  It's not quite as simple a matter of "this is what the dictionary calls it."

There have been a number of stories I've read where I would call a character's death murder, but the laws of the world in the story say call it property destruction.  My emotional response doesn't matter.  In vice versa, there's a few cases where I've read about the death of a character that I would call self-defense, but the laws of that world call it murder.  The law tends to trump the personal opinion of individuals.

[Ryzaki]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

After 36 pages, I think the reasonble conclusion to draw from this thread is that there are a lot of villains, fools, idiots, and jerks in Kirkwall, spread across all factions.

Indeed. 

It makes trying to argue from the moral high ground impossible. 

Which is a nice change. 

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...
Sorry, but it's not as straightforward as you think.  What constitutes murder varies from one legal definition to the next.  There's also an argument to be made that the word murder carries an emotional quality.  This is why a person may consider a loved one's death to have been murder while someone else--including someone with legal backing--may call it execution.  

Connotation and popular usage matter as much as denotation for a great many terms we use.  But again, what qualifies as "murder" usually hinges on the legal definition of murder in the nation you're standing in.  It's not quite as simple a matter of "this is what the dictionary calls it."

There have been a number of stories I've read where I would call a character's death murder, but the laws of the world in the story say call it property destruction.  My emotional response doesn't matter.  In vice versa, there's a few cases where I've read about the death of a character that I would call self-defense, but the laws of that world call it murder.  The law tends to trump the personal opinion of individuals.

Actually it is. If you want to use the "It's invidiual country!" excuse Hawke says Anders murdered the grand cleric and not once is it proven wrong. 

So yeah. He murdered her according to the laws in Thedas. Case closed. 

And yeah killing religious leaders with political power tends to count as murder in most ficitional stories I read. Assassination to be exact.

Anders murdered the Grand Cleric. Nothing in the narrative says otherwise. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 mai 2011 - 08:59 .