50 réponses à ce sujet

[Flamin Jesus]

*Sigh* Yes, let's channel Godwin's Law, it's far too pleasant here.



Nobody said he was right, but he did what he believed was necessary, if he had been right, you'd all claim that everything he did was completely justified.

20/20 hindsight is not a valid surrogate for logical deduction.

[Axterix]

Murdario wrote...

you people have convinced me. hitler... errr, i mean loghain wasnt such a bad guy after all. he was just doing what he thought was right for his people. you know, stuff like uniting the nation by getting rid of "undesirables", poisoning his political enemies who would seek to destabilize the nation and allowing his supporters to rape and pillage as they pleased. surely that doesnt make hitl... i mean loghain evil? he was just a little bit paranoid. thats all.

Ah, the old Hitler defense.  That's always a solid logical argument.

But consider this: maybe he's the guy whose government had undesirables rounded up and placed in camps, fire bombed cities left and right, except a few he had spared just so to really drive home how nifty his new super weapon was, and pulled off political maneuvers to do what he felt had to be done about an external threat, even though on the whole the nation wasn't for it.  Oh, yeah, and allied himself with someone who starved hordes of countrymen, threw tons more in miserable prisons, those being the ones he didn't flat out execute, forced people into combat at gunpoint without even proper weapons, and stopped advancing on a city for a bit so the people he was fighting could wipe out the resistance that rose up in anticipation of said armies arriving.

What else might that guy have been capable of if things hadn't gone right, if things had started to go bad?

Or consider Vlad the Impaler.  Nasty guy.  Stopped the Turks from running over Europe though, which makes him a hero for most of Europe at the time.  So, evil or hero?  Or maybe both?

That said, it is people who hate Loghain who just say he's evil, and that's that.  Evil is rarely evil for the sake of being evil.  Evil typically has reasons.  A diffirent situation and evil might well be good, at least from the eyes of history.

Loghain has reasons for doing what he did.  The main reason behind that was probably bad (probably because we don't know what exactly the Orleasians might have done if they'd entered the country).  Doesn't make his actions non-evil, but it does mean he's human, capable of acts of both good and evil.

[Murdario]

yes, im sure every single insane despot in the history had very good reasons for doing what they did and most likely did some good for some group of people along the way. should we not hate them and call them evil because of it? is that what you are trying to say?

[Herr Uhl]

I don't call people evil, since it is subjective.



A danish king is here (Sweden) known as The Tyrant and in Denmark is called The Good.

[Skellimancer]

Funny thing is if Loghain ordered the charge at Ostagar the king would have died anyway.



His daughter would have ended up in power anyway and Loghain would be heralded a hero.

[Murdario]

and how did you come to that conclusion?

[orpheus333]

It is probably a case of Howe allying with Loghain. After Highever they are both the strongest man in the kingdom. Both being Teyrniers(sp?) and having the majority of land and soldiers at their disposal.

[Herr Uhl]

Howe is not a Teyrn, he is an Arl.

[Flamin Jesus]

Murdario wrote...

yes, im sure every single insane despot in the history had very good reasons for doing what they did and most likely did some good for some group of people along the way. should we not hate them and call them evil because of it? is that what you are trying to say?

Yes, actually I do, "evil" is about as useful a term to describe real people (or believable, motivated characters) as cromulent, flaraploitz, or dugletologic.
I know it's easy to describe everyone who doesn't think as you do and everything you don't know or understand as evil, but life isn't a black vs. white battle of the holy trinity against the infernal host, and fiction shouldn't be either.

[Nyaore]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Howe is not a Teyrn, he is an Arl.

He was made a Teyrn after he took control of Highever, remember? Bryce was the only other person in the country, aside from Loghain, to hold that title and it defaults to whomever holds Highever as their seat of power. It's probably WHY Loghain had Bryce killed, since he would have been a threat to Loghain's power if his schemes at Ostagar proved successful. After all, Bryce doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would blindly side with Loghain and be willing to jump to his beck and call without asking some serious questions about the battle. Hence why he needed to be removed, and any claim his heirs might have had to his seat eliminated by accusing the family of high treason.
Howe is also the Arl of both Amaranthine and Denerim, which means Loghain had a very convenient 'yes man' to do his bidding so long as he keeps on providing Howe with more power. The problem with all this is that sooner or later Howe would not have been content with all of this, given his lust for power, and probably would have made a bid for the throne once he had been given enough power to do so. <-- Either by forcing a marriage to Anora, eww, or killing her and her father.

Modifié par Nyaore, 27 novembre 2009 - 09:33 .

[Murdario]

Flamin Jesus wrote...

Murdario wrote...

yes, im sure every single insane despot in the history had very good reasons for doing what they did and most likely did some good for some group of people along the way. should we not hate them and call them evil because of it? is that what you are trying to say?

Yes, actually I do, "evil" is about as useful a term to describe real people (or believable, motivated characters) as cromulent, flaraploitz, or dugletologic.
I know it's easy to describe everyone who doesn't think as you do and everything you don't know or understand as evil, but life isn't a black vs. white battle of the holy trinity against the infernal host, and fiction shouldn't be either.

how should i call persons/characters whos actions i find malicious and reprehensible then? or are you along the sames lines as the poster who said he doesnt call people evil because its subjective...

[Herr Uhl]

Murdario wrote...
how should i call persons/characters whos actions i find malicious and reprehensible then? or are you along the sames lines as the poster who said he doesnt call people evil because its subjective...

Do you really need to split it into good and evil. People seemed to do just fine without it until a Persian dude thought it would be good to cut down on the number of gods to an evil one and a good one.

Stupid, misguided, insane. These three seem to fit in on almost every "evil" character in history.

[orpheus333]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Howe is not a Teyrn, he is an Arl.

After highever he has the land and power of a Teyrn. Whether he is given the title or not it would silly to think that his sacking of Highever does not go on to its occupation and eventual integration into his lands and armies.

Killing Anora is more than possible and probably a part of his plans. I strikes me that Howe may have been the mind behind this, the devil in loghains ear.

Modifié par andyr1986, 27 novembre 2009 - 10:01 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Kelanil wrote...

Am I the only one wondering about this? Loghain is a paranoid Orlasis hater yet his right hand man is from a family that betrayed the King and sided with Orlasis. I understand Loghain needs a toady to do all the "dirty" work but from what I've seen of Loghain through my numerous playthroughs I just can't see him having a man like Howe in such a trusted and powerful position. 

The Howe family supported Orlais when it looked like they were going to be the winners, and they jumped ship and joined the rebellion after it became clear that they should throw their lot in with Loghain & Maric. Apparently, doing whatever is most politically expedient to keep themselves in power is a Howe family trait. I don't think Loghain ever actually trusted Howe. Anyone with a lick of sense wouldn't at any rate. He probably just valued his political insights.

[Herr Uhl]

andyr1986 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Howe is not a Teyrn, he is an Arl.

After highever he has the land and power of a Teyrn. Whether he is given the title or not it would silly to think that his sacking of Highever does not go on to its occupation and eventual integration into his lands and armies.

I always thought of him as an average Arl that conspires to get up in the world. Does he get power over Highever?

[Murdario]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Murdario wrote...
how should i call persons/characters whos actions i find malicious and reprehensible then? or are you along the sames lines as the poster who said he doesnt call people evil because its subjective...

Do you really need to split it into good and evil. People seemed to do just fine without it until a Persian dude thought it would be good to cut down on the number of gods to an evil one and a good one.

Stupid, misguided, insane. These three seem to fit in on almost every "evil" character in history.

arent all those terms also very subjective?

[orpheus333]

Also lets not neglect the fact that after 400 yeras the blight and the darkspawn are all but forgetten. Loghains enemy is the Orlesians and will be till his death they are still a threat to him and his country and a man that saw his family slaughterd at their hands might just do anything to make sure they that that, human, evil never returns.



The darkspawn are a relic to some just as the Grey Wardens are.

[Herr Uhl]

Murdario wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Murdario wrote...
how should i call persons/characters whos actions i find malicious and reprehensible then? or are you along the sames lines as the poster who said he doesnt call people evil because its subjective...

Do you really need to split it into good and evil. People seemed to do just fine without it until a Persian dude thought it would be good to cut down on the number of gods to an evil one and a good one.

Stupid, misguided, insane. These three seem to fit in on almost every "evil" character in history.

arent all those terms also very subjective?

Stupid is kind of relative, insane is a medical condition and misguided is simply not knowing better.

I'll grant you that insane is a broad expression though. It is just to point out that there is other ways to describe people doing despicable than evil.

[Axterix]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Stupid, misguided, insane. These three seem to fit in on almost every "evil" character in history.

There's also pragmatic.  The end justifies the means.  Quite logical, for a good cause, and very well thought out.  Just the methods taken aren't "good."

Quite a few villains run along that line.  The Lady from the Annals of the Black Company, as an example.  Rahl from Goodkind's series, when put into context by the later books where he was building up to resist the even bigger, more evil empire.  Dr. Doom, who really would make the world a better place, just as long as you don't think about opposing his will.

Applied to Loghain, just imagine, just for a second, that he's right about the Orleasians.  That, if invited in, they'd have tried to conquer Ferelden again, with an end result of considerably more misery and suffering than what happened.   Is he stupid, misguided, or insane then?

Modifié par Axterix, 27 novembre 2009 - 10:13 .

[Murdario]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Murdario wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Murdario wrote...
how should i call persons/characters whos actions i find malicious and reprehensible then? or are you along the sames lines as the poster who said he doesnt call people evil because its subjective...

Do you really need to split it into good and evil. People seemed to do just fine without it until a Persian dude thought it would be good to cut down on the number of gods to an evil one and a good one.

Stupid, misguided, insane. These three seem to fit in on almost every "evil" character in history.

arent all those terms also very subjective?

Stupid is kind of relative, insane is a medical condition and misguided is simply not knowing better.

I'll grant you that insane is a broad expression though. It is just to point out that there is other ways to describe people doing despicable than evil.

im well aware that there are more adjectives than evil around, but thank you.

[Herr Uhl]

Axterix wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Stupid, misguided, insane. These three seem to fit in on almost every "evil" character in history.

There's also pragmatic.  The end justifies the means.  Quite logical, for a good cause, and very well thought out.  Just the methods taken aren't "good."

Quite a few villains run along that line.  The Lady from the Annals of the Black Company, as an example.  Rahl from Goodkind's series, when put into context by the later books where he was building up to resist the even bigger, more evil empire.  Dr. Doom, who really would make the world a better place, just as long as you don't think about opposing his will.

Yes, but then were back at one side vs. the other. I thought serial killers and sadists for example.

And I dislike Goodkinds books after the first since it then just becomes a man frightened by socialism writing his laments.

[Kyrellic]

I would like to point out that Loghain's "betrayal" of the King came after countless attempts to keep Cailan(sp?) out of the front lines, all the way up to the final strategy meeting.

[Axterix]

Herr Uhl wrote...

And I dislike Goodkinds books after the first since it then just becomes a man frightened by socialism writing his laments.

Yeah, same, first few were good, quickly dropped off.  Well, that and 2 other factors.  That Richard's power is Dues Ex Machina and bad guys have to treat women badly, just to show how evil they are.  Sort of silly, he adds stuff to make Rahl less bad but then also goes out of his way to make his newer villain baddity bad bad.

[Herr Uhl]

Murdario wrote...
im well aware that there are more adjectives than evil around, but thank you.

The thing that irks me about evil is that it claims to be objective when it clearly is subjective, thus useless by and large.

But then again, my I might have the wrong grasp of the semantics.

[Flamin Jesus]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Murdario wrote...
im well aware that there are more adjectives than evil around, but thank you.

The thing that irks me about evil is that it claims to be objective when it clearly is subjective, thus useless by and large.

But then again, my I might have the wrong grasp of the semantics.

I don't think so, the difference between "evil" and terms like stupid, insane or misguided is that "evil" implies being evil for evilness sake, for example:
a stupid person might act differently if they could grasp what they're doing, an evil person does bad stuff fully aware of the consequences (Or rather, would do it anyway even fully aware of the consequences).
An insane person has reasons no sane person could understand, but they still do have reasons, an evil person doesn't, say, drown a puppy because they think puppies are aliens sent to kill them (like an insane person might), they just do it because they're evil.
A misguided person might do mistakes because they don't quite understand the effects of their actions, an evil person will do the same thing even with 20/20 hindsight.

By branding someone "evil" you not only claim that you somehow are an objective arbiter of human actions, you claim that the person you call evil does things simply because they're evil and for no other reason, evil is unmotivated, free of reason or cause. Naturally, evil is irredeemable because an evil person doesn't have a psychological problem, or a lack of information, or an inability to control their impulses or any other issue that might be resolved, they just have the attribute "evil", which is as unchangeable and absolute as their height, or their sex, or their skin color.
And people don't work that way, your best friend isn't good, the guy who kills him isn't evil, it's not that simple.