199 réponses à ce sujet

[Galad22]

Xandurpein wrote...

I guess in my book very few people are either paragons or 100% villians no, but that is just me. I also think that it's one of the most insidious dangers of any war, the sweet feeling that your enemy is so bad, that it doesn't matter that you kill him.

We had two changes of trying to talk him down, he didn't take them. He is responsible for countless of evil and weren't willing to show us any mercy. If we loose landsmeet, his answer is to have us executed.

So why should we show any mercy for him. And dont talk about  tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IfYouKillHimYouWillBeJustLikeHim

Because that is just weak.

Modifié par Galad22, 19 décembre 2009 - 02:22 .

[Recidiva]

Xandurpein wrote...

I guess in my book very few people are either paragons or 100% villians no, but that is just me. I also think that it's one of the most insidious dangers of any war, the sweet feeling that your enemy is so bad, that it doesn't matter that you kill him.

"all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."  Edmund Burke

It's not about sweet.  It's the knowledge that if this whackadoo is left alive he will not stop harming people.  He does nothing but harm people.  It's about duty to greater good and doing what needs to be done to make sure that someone who has proven that they're an irredeemable repeat offender gets no further chance to offend.

I cannot create life.  But I can recognize that if I do not take one life, it will cost thousands more.  Not only to save those potentially in the future, but to show those who died from his betrayal that their loss is honored, I have no qualms ending the life he abused so badly.  If he'd wanted to hold onto it, perhaps he should have valued other people's lives more.  He gave them no value.  He's the one that set the exchange rate.

Actions have reactions and this is a reasonable one.

[Xandurpein]

Recidiva wrote...

"all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."  Edmund Burke

Please point out where in my argument I advocated doing nothing. Either I have not been able to express myself properly, or that quote was in my opinion a bit unfair of you, at least if it was directed to me.

[Galad22]

Xandurpein wrote...

Please point out where in my argument I advocated doing nothing. Either I have not been able to express myself properly, or that quote was in my opinion a bit unfair of you, at least if it was directed to me.

Your answer for his crimes is to allow him to walk free and die as a hero. After all he has done. Do you think he deserves it?

[Recidiva]

Xandurpein wrote...

Please point out where in my argument I advocated doing nothing. Either I have not been able to express myself properly, or that quote was in my opinion a bit unfair of you, at least if it was directed to me.

Oh, hey.  No offense intended to you personally at all.

Someone's ideas about a game is not a representation of that person.

I'm just doing the "argue vociferously" thing that I do.  I think it's a fitting quote and indicative of my point of view. 

[Xandurpein]

Galad22 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Please point out where in my argument I advocated doing nothing. Either I have not been able to express myself properly, or that quote was in my opinion a bit unfair of you, at least if it was directed to me.

Your answer for his crimes is to allow him to walk free and die as a hero. After all he has done. Do you think he deserves it?

What he deserves or doesn't is to me a relative minor consideration. What is important is to stop him from doing harm. Of course he must be removed from power. I said so all the time. Once he is strpped from his titles and power the choice is wether he should be killed outright ro allowed to help destroy the Archdemon. I choose to let him help kill the Archdemon, but please understand. Stopping Loghain and stripping him of his power is one thing. Deciding on a punishment for what he has done is NOT the same question. Frankly I don't give a damn if he dies a hero or not, as long as the Archdemon dies.

[Xandurpein]

Recidiva wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Please point out where in my argument I advocated doing nothing. Either I have not been able to express myself properly, or that quote was in my opinion a bit unfair of you, at least if it was directed to me.

Oh, hey.  No offense intended to you personally at all.

Someone's ideas about a game is not a representation of that person.

I'm just doing the "argue vociferously" thing that I do.  I think it's a fitting quote and indicative of my point of view. 

And I agree. I have in fact argued pretty much the same thing all the time, that is why I got a startled by your quote. My whole argument is based on the belief that stopping evil and punishing evil is ultimatly two different things. To stop evil is always right, to punish evil is a much murkier area, where you can argue that punishment in some instances are good as preemption, and other times less clearly a good thing.

/Edit. That's why I think it is more important to stop evil (the Archdemon) than to punish evil (make sure Loghain dies as ignobly as possible).

Modifié par Xandurpein, 19 décembre 2009 - 01:38 .

[Recidiva]

Xandurpein wrote...

And I agree. I have in fact argued pretty much the same thing all the time, that is why I got a startled by your quote. My whole argument is based on the belief that stopping evil and punishing evil is ultimatly two different things. To stop evil is always right, to punish evil is a much murkier area, where you can argue that punishment in some instances are good as preemption, and other times less clearly a good thing.

But how do you stop something without punishing them somehow?

I can appreciate that revenge is not the best of motives, but the case I made was not about revenge, it was about logic. 

I disagree that he should get any benefit of any doubt.  That being said, you either imprison him for a lifetime or end his life humanely.

I personally would prefer to have my life ended than imprisoned.  Especially if we're talking the amount of security required and the penchant of jail guards to have less than savory reputations.

Where would you put him where he wouldn't be tortured?  How would you protect him from the reams of survivors who would want to break into any prison he's in just to torture him to death themselves?  Is jail actually humane in any way?  

I think my solution is both poetic and humane.

[Kalamity_Jones]

Xandurpein wrote...

Galad22 wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Please point out where in my argument I advocated doing nothing. Either I have not been able to express myself properly, or that quote was in my opinion a bit unfair of you, at least if it was directed to me.

Your answer for his crimes is to allow him to walk free and die as a hero. After all he has done. Do you think he deserves it?

What he deserves or doesn't is to me a relative minor consideration. What is important is to stop him from doing harm. Of course he must be removed from power. I said so all the time. Once he is strpped from his titles and power the choice is wether he should be killed outright ro allowed to help destroy the Archdemon. I choose to let him help kill the Archdemon, but please understand. Stopping Loghain and stripping him of his power is one thing. Deciding on a punishment for what he has done is NOT the same question. Frankly I don't give a damn if he dies a hero or not, as long as the Archdemon dies.

This.

The Grey Wardens are there for one thing, end the Blight. They don't care WHO is in power, WHAT someone did, or WHY they did it. If said person can be used to fight the Blight, then they start to care. Riordan had the right idea, don't forget he is a Warden too, so what Logain could of impacted him just as much. But if it did, he didn't let it go to his head. Alistair wasn't thinking of the big picture, he didn't care at that point in time. He wanted his justice. HIS justice, not the lands, they got theirs when Logain was removed from Regency. Riordan was, Logain is exceptionally skilled.. He can be used to fight the Blight. It just so happens the Joining is often fatal so if he did die, you're short one maniac. If he lives, you gained a skilled warrior and general. Win-Win.

I know this is used a lot, but its GREY Warden, they exist in the middle. They do not care what they need to do to end the Blight. They just end it.

If they wish to be good, they can do it when it leads to the goal regardless. Orzimmar and the Circle is an awesome example. Good King or Bad King. Either one you pick, you get your troops. Templars or Mages, either way.. you get your troops. Now the landsmeet. Put Logain through the ritual, he can die or join the cause and gain another Warden which is very needed. Kill him straight up, due to personal reasons, and lose a potentially good Warden and a well-known general. Alistair.. go walk the Deep Roads and leave the Wardening to the big people, k? (My 2 cents.)

[Xandurpein]

Recidiva wrote...

But how do you stop something without punishing them somehow?

In the best of worlds by making them see the error of their ways. I am under no illussion that this is an easy way, or even one that very often works. My point was just that all of you seemed to argue that giving Loghain a chance to redeem himself, in however small a way it may have been, somehow meant that I was indifferent to the need of stopping him from doing evil. At least that was how I felt. I didn't have to guard Loghain, he went willingly, and I saluted him for it, even if I would have thrown him in a dungeon if he had survived.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 19 décembre 2009 - 01:48 .

[Galad22]

You assume all Grey Wardens are the same, we certainly don't have to do anything to stop the Blight so this isn't necessarily true. I just don't think allowing Loghain to die honorably as a hero is a punishment that he deserves.

This is like if some soldier butchers bunch of innocents in a war and get of it with a honorable discharge, I would not call that justice nor punishment.

However I still see your point Xandurpein, I just can't agree with it. And I can't see it as a win-win situation either getting him through the joining, Loghain should not be trusted, he can't be trusted. Not unless you are metagaming.

Modifié par Galad22, 19 décembre 2009 - 01:58 .

[Recidiva]

Xandurpein wrote...

In the best of worlds by making them see the error of their ways. I am under no illussion that this is an easy way, or even one that very often works. My point was just that all of you seemed to argue that giving Loghain a chance to redeem himself, in however small a way it may have been, somehow meant that I was indifferent to the need of stopping him from doing evil. At least that was how I felt. I didn't have to guard Loghain, he went willingly, and I saluted him for it, even if I would have thrown him in a dungeon if he had survived.

You're working under the assumption that Loghain would learn something rather than just pretend his lessons and collect a gold star?  I can give a first chance, a second chance and under unique circumstances a third chance.

Loghain's on his fifty seventh chance and not asking for it, simply has it pressed upon him.

Learning is a privilege.  You cannot teach someone who refuses to learn.  And you certainly shouldn't assume that someone who had every opportunity to learn previously will make a different choice this time.  Nor should you waste your time when there are other, more willing and deserving people who are anxious to learn and not busy attempting to look for an opportunity to corrupt the lesson and kill the teacher.  It's possible I have more respect for Loghain's inherent nature in the long run and I don't seek to change it.  It is what it is, I just deal with it without some hopeful ideal of changing him.  He's a grown man, not a child.  He has a right to the bed he made.

I can see how you arrive at your viewpoint, but I wouldn't attempt to teach young children with that theory, much less ruthless, insane dictators.  In a perfect world it sounds like it would work.  In the real world, that's laying a lot of money down on a losing bet.  Your money, your game, your bet.  I just wouldn't risk it.  My money and attention, expertise and time is spent on those who are deserving.  That's where I place my bets.  Loghain will have to stake himself.

[PaladinZero]

You also have to admit how unfair it is that the main character gets revenge and slaughters Howe, but Alistair should just see the big picture and go along with this. Alistair has been wanting this from the beginning and my noble character wanted it too. Thousands killed, Lothering sacked, and a king dead because one man decided that it was all fairy tales and Orlesian conspiracy and we should expect to join the good guys?



As for the, we need all the help we can get to end the Blight, that might have been true early on, but I had lots of help and didn't need him at all. Shale, Sten, Oghren, Lelianna, Morrigan, Wynne, Zevran, my dog, and Alistair are great heroes (more or less) in their own right and I didn't need more help: I needed a united land. Alistair and Anora would do fine, as my playthrough eventually affirmed. The only one who missed Loghain was Anora. Few liked him and that is why he failed to unite the land in the first place. Loghain is not a man who needs a second chance and, on my second playthrough, he asked me to end his life, even after the offer to become a Grey Warden. I gladly obliged.

[robertthebard]

I'm going to take my example from that other real bastard in the game, Arl Eamon. As the injured party, or part of it, how can I pass judgement? At least for the sake of discussion. I kind of liked my City Elf's ending, where Alistair threw a hissy fit, and ran away, showing what I believe his true colors to be, Loghain performed the ritual with Morrigan, and then lived to rebuild the order he all but destroyed. All around win. In something like 30 years, assuming he lives that long, he'll be in the Deep Roads, fighting darkspawn until they overwhelm him. Another bonus. No bootlicking for approval, and the blight's over, and I'm off to Orlais to party with Leliana.



I love the "I'll kill him for what he did, that'll teach him" logic. The only reason I can see to kill him is to teach Anora what could happen to her if she gets out of line. Well, aside from the fact that I do believe he is a right bastard. Well, there's also that part where it's fun, and gives me a sense of closure, although the biggest sense of closure I get in the whole game is as a human noble killing Howe. Killing Loghain is usually for one of two reasons, and both are selfish. One is to appease Alistair, and the other is the "that'll teach him" mentality.

[geoffsbg]

I don't know, I feel like the two 'evil' men aren't really comparable in a lot of ways, and neither was their actions.

First of all, on a personal level from the perspectives of the PC and Alistair, their acts are on a different scale.  Duncan didn't raise Alistair, and given that he's a new recruit himself, how long could they have really known each other?  A month?  A year?  Howe, a family 'friend', directly attacks and kills your family .. father, mother, nephew, sister-in-Law, all your friends, and everyone that helped raise you .. out of sheer greed.  And lets not forget, as I think someone was pointing out already - as far as the PC is concerned, Loghain is the reason your brother is dead.  So you have easliy as much reason to hate Loghain as Alistair does.

Secondly, I'm not sure I agree with everyone making Loghain out to be pure evil.  His actions don't seem to be motivated by personal gain, but rather a paranoid delusion.  And his delusion isn't totally unfounded.   He clearly suffered greatly under Orlesian rule, and risked everything to drive them out.  It's no doubt what he views as his greatest achievement.  Now, just 30 years later, Maric is dead and his inexperienced son is allowing Orlesian troops to waltz into a weakened Ferelden.  At the start of the game, it really isn't all that paranoid to suspect that the Orleasians would take advantage of this unproven 'blight' by waiting for Ferelden's forces to be weak and unorganized, then take over once again.  As the game progresses, however, it becomes clear that his plan isn't working the way he wanted it to, and that the blight is in fact real.  But its too late, he's committed to his actions, and it's probably his growing desperation that leads him to his most heinous acts, such as selling slaves (probably Howe's idea).  Recall how upset he seems when Howe brings in Zevran?  Obviously hiring an assasin goes against some set of morality he still wants to cling to.     

Regardless of origin, it still would bother me as the PC to let Loghain join the wardens.  Even if he 'meant' the best for Ferelden, he clearly went too far, he sacrificed way too much morality.  However, it wouldn't bother me so much that I'd just give up and walk away.   Alistair's reaction does seem too extreme to me, and I lost a fair amount of respect for his character after seeing that the first time.  It also bothers me b/c it's out of nowhere.  We really don't hear a lot of animosity toward Loghain from him throughout the game- a little but not much.  Mostly he's just this goofy guy, a comic relief type, not at all dark and brooding and bent on revenge. 

[robertthebard]

geoffsbg wrote...

I don't know, I feel like the two 'evil' men aren't really comparable in a lot of ways, and neither was their actions.

First of all, on a personal level from the perspectives of the PC and Alistair, their acts are on a different scale.  Duncan didn't raise Alistair, and given that he's a new recruit himself, how long could they have really known each other?  A month?  A year?  Howe, a family 'friend', directly attacks and kills your family .. father, mother, nephew, sister-in-Law, all your friends, and everyone that helped raise you .. out of sheer greed.  And lets not forget, as I think someone was pointing out already - as far as the PC is concerned, Loghain is the reason your brother is dead.  So you have easliy as much reason to hate Loghain as Alistair does.

Secondly, I'm not sure I agree with everyone making Loghain out to be pure evil.  His actions don't seem to be motivated by personal gain, but rather a paranoid delusion.  And his delusion isn't totally unfounded.   He clearly suffered greatly under Orlesian rule, and risked everything to drive them out.  It's no doubt what he views as his greatest achievement.  Now, just 30 years later, Maric is dead and his inexperienced son is allowing Orlesian troops to waltz into a weakened Ferelden.  At the start of the game, it really isn't all that paranoid to suspect that the Orleasians would take advantage of this unproven 'blight' by waiting for Ferelden's forces to be weak and unorganized, then take over once again.  As the game progresses, however, it becomes clear that his plan isn't working the way he wanted it to, and that the blight is in fact real.  But its too late, he's committed to his actions, and it's probably his growing desperation that leads him to his most heinous acts, such as selling slaves (probably Howe's idea).  Recall how upset he seems when Howe brings in Zevran?  Obviously hiring an assasin goes against some set of morality he still wants to cling to.     

Regardless of origin, it still would bother me as the PC to let Loghain join the wardens.  Even if he 'meant' the best for Ferelden, he clearly went too far, he sacrificed way too much morality.  However, it wouldn't bother me so much that I'd just give up and walk away.   Alistair's reaction does seem too extreme to me, and I lost a fair amount of respect for his character after seeing that the first time.  It also bothers me b/c it's out of nowhere.  We really don't hear a lot of animosity toward Loghain from him throughout the game- a little but not much.  Mostly he's just this goofy guy, a comic relief type, not at all dark and brooding and bent on revenge. 

So how do you justify allowing a City Elf into the Wardens?  After all, in my case, I killed everyone in the castle that could be engaged to escape.  I left the Arl's son, and his mates dead as well.  Other than by association, some of those men were surely innocent as well, at least of the crimes that the Arl's son committed this time.  If you're a human, do you think some knife ear deserves to join the Wardens to escape justice?

[skotie]

Who cares Loghain sucks as a playable character anyways, I only like his voice because hes the guy who played Kain.

[skotie]

robertthebard wrote...

geoffsbg wrote...

I don't know, I feel like the two 'evil' men aren't really comparable in a lot of ways, and neither was their actions.

First of all, on a personal level from the perspectives of the PC and Alistair, their acts are on a different scale.  Duncan didn't raise Alistair, and given that he's a new recruit himself, how long could they have really known each other?  A month?  A year?  Howe, a family 'friend', directly attacks and kills your family .. father, mother, nephew, sister-in-Law, all your friends, and everyone that helped raise you .. out of sheer greed.  And lets not forget, as I think someone was pointing out already - as far as the PC is concerned, Loghain is the reason your brother is dead.  So you have easliy as much reason to hate Loghain as Alistair does.

Secondly, I'm not sure I agree with everyone making Loghain out to be pure evil.  His actions don't seem to be motivated by personal gain, but rather a paranoid delusion.  And his delusion isn't totally unfounded.   He clearly suffered greatly under Orlesian rule, and risked everything to drive them out.  It's no doubt what he views as his greatest achievement.  Now, just 30 years later, Maric is dead and his inexperienced son is allowing Orlesian troops to waltz into a weakened Ferelden.  At the start of the game, it really isn't all that paranoid to suspect that the Orleasians would take advantage of this unproven 'blight' by waiting for Ferelden's forces to be weak and unorganized, then take over once again.  As the game progresses, however, it becomes clear that his plan isn't working the way he wanted it to, and that the blight is in fact real.  But its too late, he's committed to his actions, and it's probably his growing desperation that leads him to his most heinous acts, such as selling slaves (probably Howe's idea).  Recall how upset he seems when Howe brings in Zevran?  Obviously hiring an assasin goes against some set of morality he still wants to cling to.     

Regardless of origin, it still would bother me as the PC to let Loghain join the wardens.  Even if he 'meant' the best for Ferelden, he clearly went too far, he sacrificed way too much morality.  However, it wouldn't bother me so much that I'd just give up and walk away.   Alistair's reaction does seem too extreme to me, and I lost a fair amount of respect for his character after seeing that the first time.  It also bothers me b/c it's out of nowhere.  We really don't hear a lot of animosity toward Loghain from him throughout the game- a little but not much.  Mostly he's just this goofy guy, a comic relief type, not at all dark and brooding and bent on revenge. 

So how do you justify allowing a City Elf into the Wardens?  After all, in my case, I killed everyone in the castle that could be engaged to escape.  I left the Arl's son, and his mates dead as well.  Other than by association, some of those men were surely innocent as well, at least of the crimes that the Arl's son committed this time.  If you're a human, do you think some knife ear deserves to join the Wardens to escape justice?

Well you didn't exactly get an option to just kill the Arl's Son, and some of the guards did kill one of the brides mates, but almost all the guards you run into attacked you on sight basically, besides its not like Duncan knew the extent of what you did, he just needed recruits.

[robertthebard]

Yeah, so he exercised the Right, knowing I was a killer. Probably made him feel better about getting me. However, since he's more familiar with Loghain, why wouldn't he recruit him if it came up where he could. If he could, then what makes Riordan doing the same thing any different?

[Sable Phoenix]

Recidiva wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

I guess in my book very few people are either paragons or 100% villians no, but that is just me. I also think that it's one of the most insidious dangers of any war, the sweet feeling that your enemy is so bad, that it doesn't matter that you kill him.

"all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."  Edmund Burke

It's not about sweet.  It's the knowledge that if this whackadoo is left alive he will not stop harming people.  He does nothing but harm people.  It's about duty to greater good and doing what needs to be done to make sure that someone who has proven that they're an irredeemable repeat offender gets no further chance to offend.

I cannot create life.  But I can recognize that if I do not take one life, it will cost thousands more.  Not only to save those potentially in the future, but to show those who died from his betrayal that their loss is honored, I have no qualms ending the life he abused so badly.  If he'd wanted to hold onto it, perhaps he should have valued other people's lives more.  He gave them no value.  He's the one that set the exchange rate.

Actions have reactions and this is a reasonable one.

This is so very true.

The most basic and fundamental right of a human being is the right to life.  Anyone who violates the right to life of anyone else, unless it is in defense of life, revokes their own right to live.  They have taken something from another person that can not be given back and thus something of equal cost is required of them in return.

Loghain's responsible for the unprovoked death of not just one, but thousands.  Regardless of anything else he's done, his own life is forfeit.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 19 décembre 2009 - 05:18 .

[DariusKalera]

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Recidiva wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

I guess in my book very few people are either paragons or 100% villians no, but that is just me. I also think that it's one of the most insidious dangers of any war, the sweet feeling that your enemy is so bad, that it doesn't matter that you kill him.

"all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."  Edmund Burke

It's not about sweet.  It's the knowledge that if this whackadoo is left alive he will not stop harming people.  He does nothing but harm people.  It's about duty to greater good and doing what needs to be done to make sure that someone who has proven that they're an irredeemable repeat offender gets no further chance to offend.

I cannot create life.  But I can recognize that if I do not take one life, it will cost thousands more.  Not only to save those potentially in the future, but to show those who died from his betrayal that their loss is honored, I have no qualms ending the life he abused so badly.  If he'd wanted to hold onto it, perhaps he should have valued other people's lives more.  He gave them no value.  He's the one that set the exchange rate.

Actions have reactions and this is a reasonable one.

This is so very true.

The most basic and fundamental right of a human being is the right to life.  Anyone who violates the right to life of anyone else, unless it is in defense of life, revokes their own right to live.  They have taken something from another person that can not be given back and thus something of equal cost is required of them in return.

Loghain's responsible for the unprovoked death of not just one, but thousands.  Regardless of anything else he's done, his own life is forfeit.

Yes, I am playing devil's advocate, but it could be argued that the lives that were lost because of Loghain's actions were necessary sacrifices so that more lives could be saved. 

The money recieved from the selling of the elves allowed him to outfit his army, which allowed them to fight better, which would have allowed them to save the lives of more Fereldans, including the elves left in the alienage.

[skotie]

DariusKalera wrote...

Sable Phoenix wrote...

Recidiva wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

I guess in my book very few people are either paragons or 100% villians no, but that is just me. I also think that it's one of the most insidious dangers of any war, the sweet feeling that your enemy is so bad, that it doesn't matter that you kill him.

"all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."  Edmund Burke

It's not about sweet.  It's the knowledge that if this whackadoo is left alive he will not stop harming people.  He does nothing but harm people.  It's about duty to greater good and doing what needs to be done to make sure that someone who has proven that they're an irredeemable repeat offender gets no further chance to offend.

I cannot create life.  But I can recognize that if I do not take one life, it will cost thousands more.  Not only to save those potentially in the future, but to show those who died from his betrayal that their loss is honored, I have no qualms ending the life he abused so badly.  If he'd wanted to hold onto it, perhaps he should have valued other people's lives more.  He gave them no value.  He's the one that set the exchange rate.

Actions have reactions and this is a reasonable one.

This is so very true.

The most basic and fundamental right of a human being is the right to life.  Anyone who violates the right to life of anyone else, unless it is in defense of life, revokes their own right to live.  They have taken something from another person that can not be given back and thus something of equal cost is required of them in return.

Loghain's responsible for the unprovoked death of not just one, but thousands.  Regardless of anything else he's done, his own life is forfeit.

Yes, I am playing devil's advocate, but it could be argued that the lives that were lost because of Loghain's actions were necessary sacrifices so that more lives could be saved. 

The money recieved from the selling of the elves allowed him to outfit his army, which allowed them to fight better, which would have allowed them to save the lives of more Fereldans, including the elves left in the alienage.

Yet had he not let the king die in the first place the blight would have thousands of soilders more to fight for them, the same ones he left to die, the battle could have been won had he fought with the king and the grey wardens. The lifes saved that day would only ensure a larger force for a future battle with the Arch Demon.

Lets not forget that while he supposedly believe he was doing whats best for Fereldan, he also poisoned the Arl of Redcliffe, again killing off more of his potential allies to fight against the blight, had the PC not came into the picture his fate would have been sealed.

[Kalfear]

cglasgow wrote...

To everyone upset about Alistair's hissy fit about recruiting Loghain, just one thought:

How would your human noble character react to Alistair deciding that Arl Howe should be recruited into the Grey Wardens?

So Loghain killed your mother and father and brother (far as you know).

Oh wait, no he didnt!

Not that im standing up for Loghain but OP arguement doesnt compare in the slightest

[Squiggles1334]

Loghain, we have found you guilty of high treason, deserting the battlefield, setting your king up for death at the hands of the Darkspawn at Ostagar, selling elves into slavery, inciting civil war, and conspiring to murder the Arl of Redcliffe. For any justice to be done here today, you must answer to a punishment commensurate to the gravity of your crimes.

Wait, I know! I'll put you in the same exact doomed predicament that I am currently in!






Well, **** me.

[Xandurpein]

Recidiva wrote...
You're working under the assumption that Loghain would learn something rather than just pretend his lessons and collect a gold star?  I can give a first chance, a second chance and under unique circumstances a third chance. Loghain's on his fifty seventh chance and not asking for it, simply has it pressed upon him.

You are working on the assumption that when you play the game with Loghain he is all the time plotting ways to kill you and reinstate himself as tyrant, the moment you look away. It is your game so I guess you can play it that way. I choose to play differently, and I must say I have yet to come across anything in the game that contradicts my view, that if he is allowed to live he will bahave well from then on.

I can see how you arrive at your viewpoint, but I wouldn't attempt to teach young children with that theory, much less ruthless, insane dictators.

I have two wonderful sons aged nine and twelve that I am indeed trying to teach those values I promote here. I am happy to say it seems to work well. At least none of them show signs of growing up as insane dictators.

In a perfect world it sounds like it would work.  In the real world, that's laying a lot of money down on a losing bet.  Your money, your game, your bet.  I just wouldn't risk it.  My money and attention, expertise and time is spent on those who are deserving.  That's where I place my bets.

I for one think that that it is a measure of our society that we are able to give people chances, even to those who do not deserve it. I think our judicial system is there to try and turn evil people to better people, not to exact vengeance. I guess we can end the personal debate between you and me here. It was very interesting to be sure. I just have a different set of values than you and that is what drives us to different conclusions. I wouldn't presume to tell you to change your values, so I cannot fault your logic. I just feel differently.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 19 décembre 2009 - 09:25 .