307 réponses à ce sujet

[Akka le Vil]

T3hAnubis wrote...

Mercy is the quality of a good person.
If you show him no mercy of death, you're no better than the "criminal"
you're killing (yes, I'm against RL death penalty). Killing a killer
isn't justice, it is vengeance.

=>

Yeah, because killing a guilty criminal is just the same as slaughtering thousands innocents
The stupidity of this argument is just staggering.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 23 novembre 2009 - 01:42 .

[Ace Attorney]

I read that, don't repeat yourself like a broken record. Killing a person as judgement of his crimes isn't any better that the crimes committed. If you truly think you're a better person than the accused, you don't do the same thing he is being accused off, killing another person.



Either way, I think making him a Grey Warden and letting him a finish the archdemon is a better punishment, as he serves Ferelden one last time and he rectifies himself in doing so in a poetic way.

Modifié par T3hAnubis, 23 novembre 2009 - 02:46 .

[Akka le Vil]

T3hAnubis wrote...

I read that, don't repeat yourself like a broken record. Killing a person as judgement of his crimes isn't any better that the crimes committed. If you truly think you're a better person than the accused, you don't do the same thing he is being accused off, killing another person.

I like how you tell me not to repeat myself, and you follow in the very next sentence by repeating yourself for the third time, with the same absolute stupid argument for the third time.

Anyway, if you really don't see any difference between killing a criminal for his crime and doing massive horrible criminal acts for your personnal benefits, I guess there is nothing to argue, you're just hopeless.

[Gilded Age]

Element CL wrote...
  Either way, allistair is someone who would call somebody an idiot over the internet, loghain would hold his tongue till he saw him in person,or simply not bothered.

Loghain wins.

O RLY?  I don't really have any moral/personal preference for the two, as they both have their drawbacks (Alistair can whine, Loghain is srsly unhinged and not thinking clearly).  BUT.  I do have a problem with Loghain's utter idiocy.  It's like he was following an instruction manual throughout the game entitled "How to Destroy Your Beloved Country Through Civil War and Unrest: 10 Easy to Follow Steps!"  Let's examine:

1.) He let a popular King die on the battlefield, and let most of the Grey Wardens get slaughted with him.  Yeah, the whole inviting Orlais was a bad idea, but Loghain was willing to abandon Maric's son on the flimiest of pretexts.  The thing is, he had not even a shred of evidence that Orlais might invade, none at all, but who needs solid evidence when he had a sort of...resentment?  Paranoia?  Also, he totally didn't need the Grey Wardens!  He can combat the darkspawn with...with...?!  Also, with the Grey Wardens.  If things had gone according to Loghain's plan and if there was ever a real Blight, they'd all be totally screwed, and they wouldn't even see it coming in the first place.  Good thinking, Loghain!

2.) The Power Grab.  Not bad in principle, but badly executed. He's a commoner.  Like the nobility is going to follow him, and his 0 point charisma build?  He should have known that, though.  He had lived at court for a long time; presumably, he knew the inner-workings of how court life was conducted, the prejudices of the nobility, etc.  And then the fact that he tried to bludgeon his way into the hearts of the nobility with threats of treason...  And then he let no-charisma, treacherous, hated Arl Howe be his wingman?!  Thus ensuring even further alienation from the rest of the Bann?  There's really just no words for that piece of super-awesome cunning.  I mean, if you're not personable yourself or trusted, you get where you're going on the backs of people who ARE; that's obvious.

3.) The Two-Front War.  Rarely works, even with the backing of truly gifted military minds and a ginormous army to back that up.  So it was a no-brainer that it wouldn't work in Ferelden.  Also, the thought that this supposedly intelligent "General" thought that fighting a civil war with the people who supplied the bulk of his troops was a good idea is...disturbing.  So, his plan was to engage in scorched-earth warfare with the nobility, and then he would turn around fight the darkspawn?  With the 8 people who were left in the army?  It's like he was a magna ****** laude graduate from the School of STRATEGERY & MAVERICKS.

4.) "It's not a true blight!"  Oh, okay!  So Lothering and Ostagar and the swarming hordes of darkspawn traveling around the continent, killing pretty much everything...  It's a fake Blight, right?  Like The Shining, where it's all just pictures in a book, if you close your eyes, they can't hurt you - at least, until they stab you to death and then eat your corpse.  Right.  So, let's just "bring the nobility in line and then we'll combat the darkspawn."  And the nobility in question being the people who were willing to raze their crops to the ground so that Loghain can't feed his army with them...?  That's a wonderful, forward-thinking plan, especially since medieval civil wars could last YEARS and YEARS.  You might as well just rename Fereldan "Darkspawnia" and be done with it.

5.) The Poisoning of Arl Eamon.  DUMB.  Get someone you trust implicitly to do the deed, or don't do it at all.  So obvious.  Loghain had to know if Jowan was traced back to him that would mean epic, awful, crap bad news for him.  And yet...  Another half-way decent idea horribly executed.

For the record, I think Loghain's voice is awesome.  I also think he's...delusional, as he is written in the game.  Which is fine for me, I thought he made an interesting, paranoid villain who was enjoyable to hate.  However, his choices in the game are just stupid.  They are novice mistakes, and there is just NO excuse whatsoever for someone like Loghain to be making them - period, end of story. 

Modifié par Gilded Age, 23 novembre 2009 - 03:20 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Akka le Vil.. Jump off the high horse, and stop calling everyone you disagree with stupid.... That's just... stupid...

Of course was the only reason the Orlesians were even willing to send troops because they saw an oppertunity to gain some Fereldan territory, why else would they bother? "Wah wah wah! Because it is the right thing to do waaaah!" some of you probably woefully exclaim.... Riiiight... Since when has the right thing to do ever mattered in politics and war?

Loghain's worry of the Orlesians is a healthy caution. You guys apparently have no idea whatsoever, of the mentality of a recently liberated nation towards their aggressors. Nor any idea of the aggressors towards their previous vassals...

Loghain neither ever tortured any of the arls or their sons, to the aware gamer they would by now have realized that all the torturing happened in the Arl of Denerims estate. An estate taken over by Arl Howle.

EDIT: Also, the only reason for LOghain's plans to fail is because we (as the players) ****ed them up.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 23 novembre 2009 - 03:23 .

[Dark83]

The one big problem I have with the Loghain apologists is that it underscores today's insidious problem with American culture which undermines the very values America claims to hold.

The supporters of Loghain all essentially cry "the ends justify the means", something which is personified in characters like Jack Bauer. Essentially, the Hero is "bad ass" and "cool" because he "breaks all the rules" to "get things done" and save the day. The problem with this is that it promotes an utterly wrong black and white viewpoint. An extremely wrong one, because the only reason such characters are justified is because the script has the world shape to their views. Their means are justified because they are absolutely, objectively, right.

However, as we can see with Loghain, such men are only ever subjectively right.

They think they're right, and thus their actions are justified in their eyes. You know who such people are in real life? The ones willing to do absolutely anything and commit any number of atrocities to achieve their goals? They're the ones who crashed planes into the world trade center. Yeah, I went there. Those are the sorts of people which the philosophy of "the ends justify the means" produce.

There is a reason why places like America, Canada, Britian, and other civilized nations are great places to live - we have rule of law, and everyone is accountable. The police can't randomly wipe out everyone in an Italian shopping mall because the police commissioner is absolutely convinced the Italians are going to invade and they're all spies. The current hero worship of "the ends justify the means" characters undermine everything these nations stand for.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Dark83 wrote...
Stuff...

Ah yes... so the means justify the end? So if I by only saving kittens stuck in trees and helping old ladies over the street its perfectly okay that the end result is an enormous car crash with hundreds of deaths, an even I had planned all along, but hell the means justify the end right?

By the end of the day none of these two mindsets are absolute. But if people fail to realize that sometimes tough choices must be made, we are in as deep **** as you try to say we would be, if  only the end justify the means.

[Ace Attorney]

Akka le Vil wrote...

T3hAnubis wrote...

I read that, don't repeat yourself like a broken record. Killing a person as judgement of his crimes isn't any better that the crimes committed. If you truly think you're a better person than the accused, you don't do the same thing he is being accused off, killing another person.

I like how you tell me not to repeat myself, and you follow in the very next sentence by repeating yourself for the third time, with the same absolute stupid argument for the third time.

Anyway, if you really don't see any difference between killing a criminal for his crime and doing massive horrible criminal acts for your personnal benefits, I guess there is nothing to argue, you're just hopeless.

Which you never addressed (you just go and say "I'm right, you're wrong") so I HAD repeat it. You're the one that is hopeless btw, you think vengeance equals justice. As EmperorSahlertz said, get off that high horse.

[Dark83]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Of course was the only reason the Orlesians were even willing to send troops because they saw an oppertunity to gain some Fereldan territory, why else would they bother? "Wah wah wah! Because it is the right thing to do waaaah!" some of you probably woefully exclaim.... Riiiight... Since when has the right thing to do ever mattered in politics and war?

I could be wrong, but...

The only place where Grey Wardens aren't highly respected is in Ferelden. Elsewhere, they're highly regarded and trusted, and in fact they have a signifigant presence in the Orlesian Empire. Given that nations are supposed to pay tithes to the Grey Wardens, and that the Orlesians never had an issue with them, as well as the "hero noble" culture that we hear of there, it wouldn't be a stretch for the Orlesian forces to be under the command of the Grey Wardens, with politics demanding that they do so.

In Star Wars, before Order 66, if all of a sudden the Jedi (at that point still revered warrior-philosophers) all went to a planet to confront a threat, and asked that planet's military to help, it would be very politically unpopular for the government to not lend them any troops.

[Dark83]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Dark83 wrote...
Stuff...

Ah yes... so the means justify the end? So if I by only saving kittens stuck in trees and helping old ladies over the street its perfectly okay that the end result is an enormous car crash with hundreds of deaths, an even I had planned all along, but hell the means justify the end right?

By the end of the day none of these two mindsets are absolute. But if people fail to realize that sometimes tough choices must be made, we are in as deep **** as you try to say we would be, if  only the end justify the means.

...wtf are you talking about?
I've never heard of "the means justify the end", what kind of idiot says that? Your post is very incoherant.

The simple fact is that if (for example) torture is Wrong, just because you used torture to prevent a great disaster doesn't make is Right - it is still Wrong. This is what "justify" means.

Just because the sum of your Wrongs led to the right outcome doesn't mean they weren't Wrongs.

You seem to be tossing strawmen willy nilly, aren't you?

I never said... whatever gibberish you just said. All I said was that the ends do not justify the means. To say "no to white" does not mean "yes to black". Your sort of mentality is precisely what I said is wrong with applying black and white to the real world.

Also, though it was never directed at me, saying "Loghain is evil" does not mean "I am good". I can say "that dude's a thief" while being a thief myself.

Modifié par Dark83, 23 novembre 2009 - 03:40 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Dark83 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Of course was the only reason the Orlesians were even willing to send troops because they saw an oppertunity to gain some Fereldan territory, why else would they bother? "Wah wah wah! Because it is the right thing to do waaaah!" some of you probably woefully exclaim.... Riiiight... Since when has the right thing to do ever mattered in politics and war?

I could be wrong, but...

The only place where Grey Wardens aren't highly respected is in Ferelden. Elsewhere, they're highly regarded and trusted, and in fact they have a signifigant presence in the Orlesian Empire. Given that nations are supposed to pay tithes to the Grey Wardens, and that the Orlesians never had an issue with them, as well as the "hero noble" culture that we hear of there, it wouldn't be a stretch for the Orlesian forces to be under the command of the Grey Wardens, with politics demanding that they do so.

In Star Wars, before Order 66, if all of a sudden the Jedi (at that point still revered warrior-philosophers) all went to a planet to confront a threat, and asked that planet's military to help, it would be very politically unpopular for the government to not lend them any troops.

The same would be true about the Grey Wardens, but to my knowledge after the last blight (the one some hundred years ago or so) the nations of Thedas said the Darkspawn threat was vanquished for good. Now an obvious lie, but this will no doubt have made the Grey Wardens loose standing through the centuries.

I re-read my other post and must admit I'm at a loss at what I was trying to say, it was all clear in my head but I (clearly) couldn't get my point across. I think I was trying to say: Sometimes you have to commit an evil for the greater good, and if you aren't willing to, I hope to god that someone else are, because not being willing to do that evil might cost a lot of lives..

[Dark83]

Right.

As I've said before, Good men don't necessarily make good, or even competent, rulers. (Bioware points this out explicitly with the Dwarven epilogue).

Dr. Doom is a Villain, but a much loved ruler by his people. Evil masterminds tend to be better at maintaining order than politicians who bend over backwards to keep their populations happy.



That doesn't make them any less evil. The act, and actor, remains evil. Bhelen leads his kingdom to prosperity, but is still an evil bastard.



Oh, regarding the Grey Wardens, in the current political clime, at least in Antiva, they're so highly regarded even the Crows won't touch them.

"You are still Grey Wardens, after all, and even in Antiva, killing members of your order is considered... impolitic" - Zeveran

[Mystranna Kelteel]

T3hAnubis wrote...

Which you never addressed (you just go and say "I'm right, you're wrong") so I HAD repeat it. You're the one that is hopeless btw, you think vengeance equals justice. As EmperorSahlertz said, get off that high horse.

Vengeance on Loghain would = putting his daughter on a torturing rack, poisoning him, sending assassins after him, and then selling him into slavery to Tevinter.

Executing him cleanly = making sure Loghain doesn't kill anymore innocent people, torture them, poison them, or sell them into slavery.


Loghain's crimes do not culminate with killing one man. If they did, then you could argue that killing Loghain makes us no better than he.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 23 novembre 2009 - 06:24 .

[Dark83]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I think I was trying to say: Sometimes you have to commit an evil for the greater good, and if you aren't willing to, I hope to god that someone else are, because not being willing to do that evil might cost a lot of lives..

Upon rereading your post, I have to point at what I just highlighted.

The fact is that there is no certainty.

"If I don't kill everybody in this town, thousands might die."
However, if you do kill everyone in this town, then hundreds will die, by your hand.
At the same time, even if you don't kill everyone in the town, nobody may die.

What's the line where "if" becomes acceptable? Every religion says it is unacceptable. (Even Islam, the "religion of peace". It is only those who pervert the meaning and twist the interpretations that cause the violence, as well as the gulliable idiots willing to die for them.)

[JaegerBane]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

You don't do him justice by calling him a douche..he's not like Howe, after all (and it would have been much clearer if it wasn't for that out-of-character slaver part). He certainly doesn't enjoy being mean, or does it for his personal gain (for those who see african dictatorship here)
He does what he feels necessary and is both willing and able to live with the consequences. A rare trait. If you look at history, there has been done equally much harm by rulers afraid of decisions, than by rulers like Loghain. Talk to the weak king Cailan at the beginning, when playing a City Elf. He's not even half aware of the problems in the Alienage. He might look shiny in his golden armour, but things might have gone just as bad with him in command, if not worse.
Theres not even a proof, that Ostagar would have been a clear victory if it wasn't for Loghains retreat.

There should have been a more in-depth explanation why he did what he did. It pretty much came down to a *shrug* and a "well i hate Orlais that much", which might be linked to his madness, but wasted a great deal of the "mixed feelings" you're supposed to have for him

Being able and willing to live with the consequences of his actions means absolutely squat. He pretty much chose to let the world end over accepting help from some dudes he once fought. His motivations were pathetic.

[Miguelitosoyyo]

Akka le Vil wrote...

T3hAnubis wrote...

I read that, don't repeat yourself like a broken record. Killing a person as judgement of his crimes isn't any better that the crimes committed. If you truly think you're a better person than the accused, you don't do the same thing he is being accused off, killing another person.

I like how you tell me not to repeat myself, and you follow in the very next sentence by repeating yourself for the third time, with the same absolute stupid argument for the third time.

Anyway, if you really don't see any difference between killing a criminal for his crime and doing massive horrible criminal acts for your personnal benefits, I guess there is nothing to argue, you're just hopeless.

I, like T3hAnubis, think you're wrong. Death penalty is wrong for many reasons:

              - First and most important one is that it's inmoral. Killing a person no matter why is evil. Obviously the more people you kill the worse it is. But I hope you agree that killing one single person is horrible and makes the killer a murderer. Even if the one you kill is a psycho you're still a murderer.

             - Sencond one is that it's irreversible. If you kill someone as penalty for one or many crimes and later on that person turns to be innocent you can't resurrect him/her and using your sense of justice you should be the one killed next for killing an innocent person.

             - Third is that it's a tool that tyrants use to scare and enslave people. Only that is enough reason to erradicate it.

And more on topic I felt very disappointed when Alistair turned to  be so thirsty for vengeance. On my first playthrough I had to choose Anora because I felt supporting Alistair wasn't justice.

[Akka le Vil]

T3hAnubis wrote...

Which you never addressed (you just go and say "I'm right, you're wrong") so I HAD repeat it.

If someone tells me that water isn't wet or that "1+1 = 3", I also usually don't have to explain why they are wrong.
You basically support that two different actions having different motives, different circumstances and different intents are the same. Well, what can I answer ?
You refuse the very IDEA of morality (intents, motives, action, consequences), and you try to teach me morality. Hu, well, right. It's just like someone trying to explain mathematics and refusing to accept the concept of addition.

I can also tell that a horse and dog are the same, after all they're both mammals.

And you even have the nerve to take the high ground about teaching conceptual differences afterward...

Loghain's crimes do not culminate with killing one man. If they
did, then you could argue that killing Loghain makes us no better than
he.

Well said.
Though even "killing one man" wouldn't be sufficient. The why and the how count just as much. Killing in self-defense, executing a sentence, killing out of vengeance and killing out of malice are all killing, and all very different (though some will argue the opposite, which is simply a conceptual absurdity).

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 23 novembre 2009 - 07:58 .

[Ace Attorney]

I refuse morality? Wow, you're so full of yourself. I'm saying the death penalty is wrong and immoral. Sure, there are very serious crimes which deserve equally serious punishments BUT killing the accused isn't justice in anyway, you're doing a crime by doing it: premeditated murder. Doing a crime to punish another crime is an immoral and barbaric act for the very reasons Miguelitosoyyo said a few posts above.

Modifié par T3hAnubis, 24 novembre 2009 - 12:27 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

It's not a "crime" to execute a guilty man, especially in Ferelden. You can try to argue that it's a "crime" against humanity and immoral, which you're currently doing, I guess.

But, well, since we don't have the option of putting Loghain in the stockades for the rest of his life, you think a more fitting punishment is to... force him to drink some darkspawn blood that might kill him? And if he survives, force him to fight the archdemon, which might kill him? Have him deliver the final blow to the archdemon which will definitely kill him?

Or, you can let him completely walk free. It's a balancing act. Either he dies by your sword or he dies by the Archdemon, or he walks free. The only case you can try to make is that sparing him lets him choose a "better" death, but then one is not really better than the other since Loghain is completely willing to die at the Landsmeet, and a death is a death. Even if you think "the death penalty" in a medieval setting for a slaver and a murderer is "immoral", there is really no other option that doesn't involve letting an insanely guilty and immoral man walk free.

You could even argue that forcing him to become a Grey Warden is far more immoral than killing him. Either way, this is a little ridiculous. If you're that upset about "the death penalty", then you must absolutely despise this game, considering how many people you kill. And it's not all in self-defense.
Just saying.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 24 novembre 2009 - 03:23 .

[Mystranna Kelteel]

I also meant to add, for those arguing that Loghain was saving his army by pulling out, that he planned the retreat long before Ostagar.



First, there's Howe at Highever.

Second, Ser Donall in the Lothering chantry specifically says that Eamon was poisoned before the king died.

It was all planned treason, and there's your proof.

[Akka le Vil]

T3hAnubis wrote...

I refuse morality? Wow, you're so full of yourself.

No, you're just visibly lacking in the understanding department. You can not speak about morality (that is, moral judgement of decisions and actions) when refusing to take intent, motive, circumstances and the like into consideration, as morality is precisely about using these criteria to make an evaluation.

As I said, it's exactly like trying to explain mathematic and refusing to recognize the existence of addition.

I'm saying the death penalty is wrong and immoral. Sure, there are very serious crimes which deserve equally serious punishments BUT killing the accused isn't justice in anyway, you're doing a crime by doing it: premeditated murder. Doing a crime to punish another crime is an immoral and barbaric act for the very reasons Miguelitosoyyo said a few posts above.

According to your idiotic reasoning, self-defense is also a crime, immoral and barbaric.
You should better think your reasoning through, because you leave just so many factors and degrees that you end up simply making a binary call about something without even getting its context.

[Akka le Vil]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

If you're that upset about "the death penalty", then you must absolutely despise this game, considering how many people you kill. And it's not all in self-defense.
Just saying.

I would rather say that if he's so upset about "killing is bad", he should perhaps look twice at the man he's defending. Just imagine how much he must be upset about the godawful amount of people Loghain did kill.
Strangely, he seems much more upset about killing someone who clearly went out of his way to deserve it, than his victims. classical moral disonance when it comes to If you kill him, you'll be just like him, with all the baggage of idiocy it has.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 24 novembre 2009 - 08:32 .

[nuculerman]

T3hAnubis wrote...

Mercy is the quality of a good person. If you show him no mercy of death, you're no better than the "criminal" you're killing (yes, I'm against RL death penalty). Killing a killer isn't justice, it is vengeance.

"Mercy is a contingency plan devised by the guilty in the eventuality that they're caught."
-Kahlan Amnell, Confessor (Terry Goodkind)

The quality most rational people are trying to express when they say "mercy" is actually forgiveness.  Mercy would be letting Loghain live but not forgiving his actions.  That's an insult to justice and no less evil than any of his actions.  Forgiving Loghain of his actions and letting him live a life devoted to making up for them as a Gray Warden isn't mercy.  It's justice.

[Akka le Vil]

Actually, only the victims of someone have the moral right to "forgive" him.

If I kill your family and some unrelated guy the next block "forgive" me, I'm pretty sure you won't see this as justice at all.

At the very best, you can forgive him about the part of the crimes he commited specifically toward you, but no more.

[nuculerman]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Actually, only the victims of someone have the moral right to "forgive" him.
If I kill your family and some unrelated guy the next block "forgive" me, I'm pretty sure you won't see this as justice at all.
At the very best, you can forgive him about the part of the crimes he commited specifically toward you, but no more.

This is true.  But you have the authority to speak for the majority of his victims.  You represent the Grey Wardens.  Allistair and Anora represent Cailan.  That pretty much only leaves the elves, assuming you left them alive.

You have the moral right to forgive the vast majority of his crimes.  Your analogy isn't really meaningful considering you're not a random guy next door.  You are the leader of the Grey Wardens in Fereldan, the Orleian organization to which the majority of Loghain's crimes were directed.

Though, another Sword of Truth quote comes to mind,

"Michael, I forgive you all your crimes against me.  But I cannot forgive your crimes against everyone else, and for those crimes, you will be executed."
-Richard, Wizard's First Rule (Terry Goodkind)

You are correct that, short of talking to Varathorn and the heads of the families of everyone Loghain murdered directly and indirectly, justice calls for nothing short of Loghain's execution, or at least his enlistment in the Grey Wardens and mandatory self sacrifice to slay the Archdemon.  But you don't have the knowledge prior to his sentencing so his execution is required.