1429 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

novaseeker wrote...

Of course.  Loghain is captivated by his own nationalist sense of paranoia.  So was Hitler.  Loghain probably personally honestly believed he was doing the best thing for Ferelden, in light of his paranoia issues.  Hitler also believed he was doing the right thing for Germany and Europe, too, in light of his own way of viewing the world. 

Loghain may very well have believed he was doing what was best, but so did Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and so on.  If the standard of morality is "what he thought was best", then we don't have any moral standard at all.

Loghain made evil decisions, regardless of what he personally thought about them.  His personal views on them do not determine the morality of the actions he took.

Thank You!

Finally someone sees my point instead of crying GODWIN! GODWIN!

That´s it. He did what he thought was right, but he thought wrong. So simple.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


Selling elves provided money needed to finance the war. Yes it is necessary, or at the very least, helpful. Killing people, in detriment to the war effort simply because you hate them while your nation is being invaded by two other powers is idiocy. The two examples are incomparable.
Loghain didn't let Tevinter military in, only slavers. So they were not a threat.

In case you missed the part, where the slaver you run into in the alienage is a BLOOD Mage, then let me remind you of it, and I will state again: letting in a foreign power that not only historically used blood magic to rule, but even now tolerates its existance, is not a very smart idea, by any shot. Especially as, in game, we learn that it's not just the Chantry, but just about everyone in the country, who believes such mages should be killed on sight. Why? Bloood mages can take control of people's minds, force them into certain actions, ect. So, conspiring with an agent of such a power, however briefly, poses a bigger threat than a gain. it would be like letting in dangerous enemy scientists in your country, with access to control major institutions, in exchange for some money. 

And again, there were plenty of other ways he could have raised funding without taking such risks. it was unecessary and foolish.

Loghain was fighting the nobility yes. The people who don't want a "commoner" on the throne. But he was also preparing to fight the darkspawn, as he tells us afterwards. How do you want him to fight the darkspawn if the stupid nobility is rebelling?
The civil war is everyone's fault and a testemony to how every single one is an idiot. Not only Loghain. But at least he had a plan in mind. What were the nobility thinking?

It was alot more than just a "commoner on the throne" bit. Loghain jumps up suddenly and seizes the throne, starts declaring himself regent, and starts barking orders and laying down laws without a damned good explaination, and he expects people to simply nod and say "sure, buddy." Stupid nobility? I don't think so. They knew something was up, and probably smelled a coup. And several of them decided they weren't going to take it lying down. The stupidity of the Nobility is not from opposing Loghain, but their inability to unite against this threat and do something about it. Unlike Loghain, many did not have direct experience with what happened at Ostagar, and the reacted to the threat they saw right in front of them: a mad general trying to take over their country.

So you blame a man for putting down rebellions in a time of war? Duh, any nation would have done the same, during a war or not. So I don't see your point.

No, I blame him for being careless enough to allow them to start in the first place. Had he actually thought it out, and not come charging madly for the throne, he could have worked something out to prevent this. He spent enough time before Ostagar plotting and working to remove potential threats to his rise in power, so it's not like he couldn't have forseen that. Careless, sloppy, and foolish.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

outlaworacle wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Dragon Age1103 wrote...
your perspective makes sense to me. Loghain say the error of his ways when he realized your character was stronger than he assumed. "a child wanting to play in the game of war" or how ever he put it. lol. I understand he pushed the brink of insanity due to his growing paranoia of the Orlesians invading but he did so many more good things for Ferelden than bad. He made mistakes but at heart he is a good man. He has a short temper & sometimes starts fights he really shouldn't but he was always good to his people & his country. his heart was just temporarily corrupted by fear.

Corrupted by fear and a weasel named Howe.

I actually have to wonder whether Howe was still in cahoots with the Orlesians and actually had the blight gone as he probably planned, would've got them back in again after seeing off Loghain.

To quote his dying words..

"I... deserved.... more!"

@Outlaw everyone is entitled to their opinion, if you can't accept that, stay out of a debate.

I just take some comments a lead writer for a game wrote and ignore the part where he mentioned that players can take the perception that Howe had a major influence over Loghain and that no one is entitled to differing opinions than me because I am the sad almighty jerk who should be obeyed

Fixed your quote bug and editted your post for the truth

I refer you to my Original post.

If you can't accept a debate, don't bother getting involved.

Modifié par Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien, 10 janvier 2010 - 09:51 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

@ Knight: Repeating that every Real World Nation would have done the same is pointless. It just shows that every Real World nation is ruled by people ready to commit crimes. And that´s something I knew already.

Then you are talking about ideals and that is subjective. I prefer to be a realist and under realist circumstances, what Loghain did was understandable.
I can't argue with you on the basis of ideals, as that is a waste of time.

[Bullets McDeath]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Dragon Age1103 wrote...
your perspective makes sense to me. Loghain say the error of his ways when he realized your character was stronger than he assumed. "a child wanting to play in the game of war" or how ever he put it. lol. I understand he pushed the brink of insanity due to his growing paranoia of the Orlesians invading but he did so many more good things for Ferelden than bad. He made mistakes but at heart he is a good man. He has a short temper & sometimes starts fights he really shouldn't but he was always good to his people & his country. his heart was just temporarily corrupted by fear.

Corrupted by fear and a weasel named Howe.

I actually have to wonder whether Howe was still in cahoots with the Orlesians and actually had the blight gone as he probably planned, would've got them back in again after seeing off Loghain.

To quote his dying words..

"I... deserved.... more!"

@Outlaw everyone is entitled to their opinion, if you can't accept that, stay out of a debate.

I just take some comments a lead writer for a game wrote and ignore the part where he mentioned that players can take the perception that Howe had a major influence over Loghain and that no one is entitled to differing opinions than me because I am the sad almighty jerk who should be obeyed

Fixed your quote bug and editted your post for the truth

I refer you to my Original post.

If you can't accept a debate, don't bother getting involved.

Way to jump on the late train! I'm not ignoring anything Gaider said. Howe's potential influence over Loghain doesn't change the fact that Gaider stated quite clearly, Loghain planned to betray Cailan before Ostagar. Which is all I'm arguing, and people continue to refute it after endless amounts of logic and even in the face of David Gaider saying otherwise.  Wow, everyone is entitled to their opinion, thanks for blowing my goddamn mind. I seriously don't know even know what to live for now!! I guess when people are wrong I'll just keep in mind it's opinions that count, not logic.

Also, wow, changing my post. Way to win the maturity contest. But thanks for taking the time out from your masturbation schedule.

Modifié par outlaworacle, 10 janvier 2010 - 09:59 .

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

@ Knight: Repeating that every Real World Nation would have done the same is pointless. It just shows that every Real World nation is ruled by people ready to commit crimes. And that´s something I knew already.

Then you are talking about ideals and that is subjective. I prefer to be a realist and under realist circumstances, what Loghain did was understandable.
I can't argue with you on the basis of ideals, as that is a waste of time.

It may be understandable, but that doesn´t mean it´s not evil. I´m quite capable of understanding evil things without excusing them.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
In case you missed the part, where the slaver you run into in the alienage is a BLOOD Mage, then let me remind you of it, and I will state again: letting in a foreign power that not only historically used blood magic to rule, but even now tolerates its existance, is not a very smart idea, by any shot. Especially as, in game, we learn that it's not just the Chantry, but just about everyone in the country, who believes such mages should be killed on sight. Why? Bloood mages can take control of people's minds, force them into certain actions, ect. So, conspiring with an agent of such a power, however briefly, poses a bigger threat than a gain. it would be like letting in dangerous enemy scientists in your country, with access to control major institutions, in exchange for some money. 

And again, there were plenty of other ways he could have raised funding without taking such risks. it was unecessary and foolish..

There is already blood mages roaming in the country and they don't pose a threat on such a large scale as would legions of chevaliers. Plus, the tevinter mages have nothing to gain from taking over. It will expose their activities and put them at risk.
Of course, there could have always been the possibility, but it's slim. Worth the risk.
Tell me about those other ways.

And so you are arguing against the enslavement of the elves from a pratical point of view and not the morality of it? That's a welcome change at least.

It was alot more than just a "commoner on the throne" bit. Loghain jumps up suddenly and seizes the throne, starts declaring himself regent, and starts barking orders and laying down laws without a damned good explaination, and he expects people to simply nod and say "sure, buddy." Stupid nobility? I don't think so. They knew something was up, and probably smelled a coup. And several of them decided they weren't going to take it lying down. The stupidity of the Nobility is not from opposing Loghain, but their inability to unite against this threat and do something about it. Unlike Loghain, many did not have direct experience with what happened at Ostagar, and the reacted to the threat they saw right in front of them: a mad general trying to take over their country.

He didn't sieze the throne, Anora was still Queen. And he had military experience, in a time of war, obviously it would be best to have him as regent. There was little reason for the nobility to rebel. They did because they too didn't think it was a blight and because they hate the idea of a commoner giving them orders. So yes, they are arrogant and stupid. And extremily useless.

No, I blame him for being careless enough to allow them to start in the first place. Had he actually thought it out, and not come charging madly for the throne, he could have worked something out to prevent this. He spent enough time before Ostagar plotting and working to remove potential threats to his rise in power, so it's not like he couldn't have forseen that. Careless, sloppy, and foolish.

Well I agree with you here, he should have assasinated Teagan as well. And made sure most of the nobility is silenced
He wasn't a mastermind liek Bhelen no. But he was a hell alot better than those around him, except for the Grey Warden. 

But in general I agree. I never said Loghain was a mastermind or a genius. But he wasn't an idiot either andhe wasn't insane.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2010 - 10:00 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

@ Knight: Repeating that every Real World Nation would have done the same is pointless. It just shows that every Real World nation is ruled by people ready to commit crimes. And that´s something I knew already.

Then you are talking about ideals and that is subjective. I prefer to be a realist and under realist circumstances, what Loghain did was understandable.
I can't argue with you on the basis of ideals, as that is a waste of time.

It may be understandable, but that doesn´t mean it´s not evil. I´m quite capable of understanding evil things without excusing them.

I do not share your same definition of "evil". In fact, I dont' even recognise the word.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

outlaworacle wrote...

Also, wow, changing my post. Way to win the maturity contest. But thanks for taking the time out from your masturbation schedule.

Do you actually read what you put in your posts? I know you modified this one, probably because you know darn well it could have got you so easily reported.

But virtually every single one of your posts in this topic has been insulting people left right and centre.

So stop trying to preach that you are mature because you are anything but it.

The pot calling the kettle black springs to mind.

[Leyt22]

I find it odd to write such lengthy posts in defense of a fictional character whose actions, intentions, and thoughts are prewritten and, I think, confirmed in some respect. With that opinion presented, I might as well offer something that pertains to the topic of the thread, and so I will:

Loghain is a traitorous bastard who deserves the beheading I often deliver to him at the end of my playthroughs. Whether his mind was whacked out of control, or if he truly believed he was doing what would best serve his homeland, it matters not. You don't forgive a madman's crimes because his screwy head thought they were just.

Modifié par Leyt22, 10 janvier 2010 - 10:02 .

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I do not share your same definition of "evil". In fact, I dont' even recognise the word.

Evil = not accepting other people´s right to live as they want and treating them in a way they don´t allow

[Realmzmaster]

KnightofPhoenix,
Are you saying it is ok to sell the citizens of a country into slavery to fund the war effort? Because the elves of Ferelden are citizens. You may consider them second class citizens, but under the laws of Ferelden they are citizens. So it would also be ok to sell certain commoners (women, children, the aged, disabled etc) to the slavers to fund the war. Or is it okay as long as it does not affect the majority?
If Loghain could justify it by saying they need the funds to fuel the war , why does he hide it from the rest of the country? Because he would be seen as violating one of the fundmental moral and legal principle of the country. It would give people pause about his ability to rule.
The city elves are also forbidden under punishment of death or imprisonment from carrying any weapon or wearing armor. The elves do riot because of poor living conditions and the treatment they receive. The riot is brutually put down by Howe and his men to the point of destroying an orphanage and everyone within.
What happens if you start losing the war? Do you start selling the majority into slavery? At that rate there would be no one to rule over.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 10 janvier 2010 - 10:16 .

[Asylumer]

Leyt22 wrote...

You don't forgive a madman's crimes because his screwy head thought they were just.

My original post argued that Loghain was not mad, but have you ever heard of an insanity plea? I'm pretty sure we have protection for the mentally unstable because, you know, it's widely considered immoral to execute them for an illness.

Just saying...

[Bullets McDeath]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

Also, wow, changing my post. Way to win the maturity contest. But thanks for taking the time out from your masturbation schedule.

Do you actually read what you put in your posts? I know you modified this one, probably because you know darn well it could have got you so easily reported.

But virtually every single one of your posts in this topic has been insulting people left right and centre.

So stop trying to preach that you are mature because you are anything but it.

The pot calling the kettle black springs to mind.

Because they are wrong, have been proven wrong, and continue to argue. So yes, I think they are stupid and I said so. Remember: EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS!!!

Report if you feel like it. I'm sure you have nothing better to do than to tattle to teacher on people who disagree with you.

[DariusKalera]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightOfPhoenix wrote:

Then let me rephrase that. If I am ruling a country under war and I desperatly need money, I would sell the elves in a heartbeat. I would do so out of necessity, not out of hatred.

Skadi wrote:
Yes, and so did just about every other maniacal sociopathic dictator in history. Which is not helping Loghain's defense much here, as such a defense might gain approval from the old Reichstag, but this is Nuremburg, baby.

No, that's what all leaders did. But you somehow think that war can be fought in a "good way".
Don't resort to godwins, it's useless. There is a big difference between doing something for the war effort and doing something that serves no purpose.

Don´t resort to flaming about Godwin, he was a wise man.
There is NO big difference between crimes commited for nothing and crimes commited for a war. Because a war is something bad. Actually, I think committing crimes to lead a war makes them even worse, if it affects them at all.

And btw, a war CAN be fought in a good way. By NOT ignoring civil rights, NOT oppressing minorities, NOT harming innocents but simply sending a taskforce to wherever your enemy´s leaders hide and capturing them with as little damage to civilians as possible.

A war can be fought in that way, but it most certainly will not be won in that way.  The only one of those things that you mentioned that is valid is the none suppression of minorities.

Killing the leaders does nothing if the population supporting them and the soldiers following them still have the willingness and means by which to fight.

To win a war, you have to make the cost of fighting the war so terrible for the other side that surrender is preferrable.   

Modifié par DariusKalera, 10 janvier 2010 - 10:07 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I do not share your same definition of "evil". In fact, I dont' even recognise the word.

Evil = not accepting other people´s right to live as they want and treating them in a way they don´t allow

I don't share the same definition.

@ realmaster
Yes, it is ok. As long as the majority doesn't suffer from it.
He hides it from the country because it's illegal activity and because he knows that the hypocrits would use it against him. I found it extremily laughable that the nobility was so appalled by slavery, while they have no problem throwing the elves in pseudo concentration camps, with little food and are treated like dogs, while all of them have elven servants in their estates. Either the writing team screwed up big time, or they ingenuiously showed how politics is full of hypocrits.

Overturning laws, or imposing m,arshall law, is common to all nations at war. Survival and victory is more important than ideals. Loghain couldn't do that in the open since the nobility was already rebelling.  

[Tirigon]

DariusKalera wrote...

A war can be fought in that way, but it most certainly will not be won in that way.  The only one of those things that you mentioned that is valid is the none suppression of minorities.

Killing the leaders does nothing if the population supporting them and the soldiers following them still have the willingness and means by which to fight.

To win a war, you have to make the cost of fighting the war so terrible for the other side that surrender is preferrable.   

That is not true. Wars are always led by the leader. The crowd is not interested in politics and will simply follow whoever is in charge. They are not interested in a war either, especially if they are not winning. Removing the leaders will most certainly cause the war to end. You can simply put a new leader on the top who rules in your favor. The crowd will most certainly not rebel. For once because they can´t, what with having no weapons and all, for once because they are not interested in government as long as you provide them food and entertainment.

Sure, there will probably remain a few fanatics who are still fighting for their leaders, but these are unorganized and can easily been put down.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

outlaworacle wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

outlaworacle wrote...

Also, wow, changing my post. Way to win the maturity contest. But thanks for taking the time out from your masturbation schedule.

Do you actually read what you put in your posts? I know you modified this one, probably because you know darn well it could have got you so easily reported.

But virtually every single one of your posts in this topic has been insulting people left right and centre.

So stop trying to preach that you are mature because you are anything but it.

The pot calling the kettle black springs to mind.

Because they are wrong, have been proven wrong, and continue to argue. So yes, I think they are stupid and I said so. Remember: EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINIONS!!!

Report if you feel like it. I'm sure you have nothing better to do than to tattle to teacher on people who disagree with you.

I wouldn't report you for your opinion on the topic, what I would report you for is your constant insulting comments aimed at people due to them having a differing opinion to you.

If you can't understand that, then you clearly are a lost cause.

[eschilde]

outlaworacle wrote...

I think Occam's Razor could be applied well here. No, it is not explicitly spelled out in giant neon letters, but if you think about it for 2.8 seconds, it's bloody obvious... you really have to be working under the assumption that Loghain was innocent to make any other argument, which is a pretty dumb place to start from since we know he's guilty as hell. Anyway I'm done arguing about this, I don't think even David Gaider coming into this thread would help, people would just argue with him too probably.

Perhaps it's obvious to you. The point isn't that you think something to be true, but that the possibility that it isn't true exists. If DG came into this thread, the choice to take what he says into consideration would again be up to an individual, since it's not lore included in the game.

Calling an argument 'dumb' and making personal attacks on people who disagree with you isn't the best way to go about proving your point. It's only the internet. It's in your best interests not to get too worked up about something but hey, it's your blood pressure.

@Skadi_the_Evil_Elf (I think)

I'm pretty sure it was you who said this but I can't find the quote right now >.> that Loghain had other options for raising cash, beyond collaborating with the Tevinter slavers. I'm actually curious about what other options you think he had, because I was under the impression Loghain wouldn't have stooped so low given other options. I'm not really sure how financing in Fereldan works.

I was thinking the Bannorn finance their personal armies by taxing trade and citizens in their jurisdictions, and pay taxes to the crown to retain their land and rights, since the military Loghain calls for seems to be made up of smaller Bannorn armies. The cost on the crown would be to finance the costs of feeding and maintaining the armies during the period of the campaign?

(Thinking about this, I realize I don't have much information on how this actually works. Better ideas? :S)

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I don't share the same definition.

Give yours then, please.

@ realmaster
Yes, it is ok. As long as the majority doesn't suffer from it.
He hides it from the country because it's illegal activity and because he knows that the hypocrits would use it against him. I found it extremily laughable that the nobility was so appalled by slavery, while they have no problem throwing the elves in pseudo concentration camps, with little food and are treated like dogs, while all of them have elven servants in their estates. Either the writing team screwed up big time, or they ingenuiously showed how politics is full of hypocrits.

Overturning laws, or imposing m,arshall law, is common to all nations at war. Survival and victory is more important than ideals. Loghain couldn't do that in the open since the nobility was already rebelling.  

I agree with the nobles being hypocrites. That´s one of the many reasons why I said in another discussion I wished there was the possibility to kill them all.

I´m appalled by your ideas though. You are practicallly promoting slavery, genocide, robbing and so forth, as long as it´s not directed against the majority.
According to your statements, it would be ok if the USA would introduce slavery again, as black people are not the majority.
The Holocaust would be ok, because all it´s victims were part of minorities.
The Chinese / Iran suppression of democrats would be ok because these democrats are not the majority.

Please tell me you are joking.

[SuperMaoriFulla]

eschilde wrote...

SarEnyaDor wrote...

Loghain must always die.

No matter how you slice it, he betrayed Maric, and he betrayed Rowan, by not doing everything in his power to save Cailan, no matter what the cost.

I personally think he hated Cailan for being Maric's son more than he loved Cailan for being Rowan's.

Are the books a good read? I'm actually considering ordering them since people keep referencing them here >.>

Loghain should die for a lot of reasons, not just that he betrayed a lot of people, but also because he made extremely bad judgment calls and steered Fereldan on a course of civil war. You make it sound like he hated Maric, which isn't really the impression I get from the game.. >.>

The books are a great read. Might make you think twice about executing Loghain.

The relationship between Maric, Rowan and Loghain is complicated to say the least.

[robertthebard]

Asylumer wrote...

Dragon Age1103 wrote...

Why didn't you address my point that completely destroyed your argument? It was not in his character to leave Calin to die. Some part of him must of felt it necessary to leave Calin to die in order to take up power to save Ferelden from the blight. There may have not even been reason to it, just fear, paranoia & probably close to insanity. He did kill Calin either for power or was too cowardice to save him. Something stopped him though & it was his fault. The battle was not lost, Loghain was lost in fear or a quest for power.

Oh? The only good point you made I talked about in my previous post.

Everything else has been covered, you've just been too blind to read it. No, Loghain would not have left Cailan to die, not without a reason. If he suspected the Wardens delayed the signal on purpose and that there was no Blight, he'd think there was need for an army soon. He didn't want to risk Ferelden's entire force to possibly save the King.

... so nice of you to pay attention though, really.

The facts ARE Loghain failed to protect Calin, he failed to give reasons why he felt the battle was lost, he also failed to prove the Grey Warden's were working with the Orlesians or planning anything else he suspected.

He failed to protect Cailan: True. From the Comments we know he's deeply saddened by it.
He failed to give reasons for why the battle was lost: Who did he need to answer to again?
He failed to prove the Grey Wardens were working with Orlais: Duh? That's why he was mistaken and admitted it after you defeat him.

I mean really, why do I bother posting if you won't read?

If he was so confident the battle was hopeless he would of pointed out why.

Again, who would he point this out to, and why? Most of the Landsmeet seems convinced that Loghain was in the right, that's why you get a penalty for bringing it up.

Loghain by nature is extremely stubborn & will rarely turn down a fight. If he does it is not b/c he feels the odds are against him but b/c he is restrained for some reason.

If you had been paying attention you'd know that reason.

The books clearly reveals many aspects of his personality.

Probably, but so far nothing you've brought up has been relevant.

I'm not arguing the points like the guard, the mage, Arl Eamon, none of that just that he did kill Calin out of fear or for power he is responsible.

Great! Then start arguing for why he did kill Cailan instead of crying that I'm wrong. I'm willing to be proven wrong but you've done a ******-poor job of it so far. Ignoring arguments I've already made, and not addressing them at all besides "YOU'RE WRONG", is a good way to get ignored yourself though.

He wouldn't have left him to die without a reason?  How about this reason; he couldn't take the throne with Cailin alive.

[Realmzmaster]

KnightofPhoenix,

So you are saying that only the nobility have problems with slavery? You are assuming that the majority does not have a problem with it? The majority may treat the elves as second class citizens, it doe not mean that the majority is okay with slavery. What is to stop a ruler from selling anyone into slavery and justifying it by saying it is neccessary for the war effort?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I don't share the same definition.

Give yours then, please.

I don't believe in good or evil.

I agree with the nobles being hypocrites. That´s one of the many reasons why I said in another discussion I wished there was the possibility to kill them all.

I´m appalled by your ideas though. You are practicallly promoting slavery, genocide, robbing and so forth, as long as it´s not directed against the majority.
According to your statements, it would be ok if the USA would introduce slavery again, as black people are not the majority.
The Holocaust would be ok, because all it´s victims were part of minorities.
The Chinese / Iran suppression of democrats would be ok because these democrats are not the majority.

Please tell me you are joking.

Then you CLEARLY did not understand anything I said.

The holocaust was utter stupidity because Hitler was spending ressources on something useless instead of funding the war effort and help save Germany from his expansionist policy that were doomed to fail. Plus, if Hitler had thought and if he had the Jews on his side, he would have gotten a very productive and strong people at his side (unlike the elves, who are useless). But he didn't. 
The holocaust served no purpose whatsoever. It didn't help the majority or the nation at all.

If the USA is under that much of a threat and under invasion, then selling anyone to finance the war effort is ok. 
Alternatively, if South Africa is attacked severly, then selling the white minority wouldn't be a bad thing, no.

Yes the Chinese and Iranian suppression of so called "democrats" is justified, because those "democrats" are used by foreign powers to undermine the regime. The regime that the majority of people support. Plus, Iran had an election and the victor was decided, complaing about it is hypocritical.

So no, I do not approve of just any action against a minority simply because they are a minority. It's only under extreme circumstances and with a clear purpose. Doing it for no reason is not justified. And it's not the end of the world either. 
 

[eschilde]

Tirigon wrote...

I agree with the nobles being hypocrites. That´s one of the many reasons why I said in another discussion I wished there was the possibility to kill them all.

I´m appalled by your ideas though. You are practicallly promoting slavery, genocide, robbing and so forth, as long as it´s not directed against the majority.
According to your statements, it would be ok if the USA would introduce slavery again, as black people are not the majority.
The Holocaust would be ok, because all it´s victims were part of minorities.
The Chinese / Iran suppression of democrats would be ok because these democrats are not the majority.

Please tell me you are joking.

Well, it is kind of similar to the Chinese supression of minorities. Naturally it wouldn't be approved of in the States at this time, but in other parts of the world it might be easily justifiable. It may not be morally correct to do, but if there won't be a backlash from the majority that you can't deal with, it may be something you don't feel bad doing. 

I suppose that comparing the elven population to blacks post-Civil War in the States is probably a good comparison. It wasn't considered wrong, and some of the blacks were treated well, but they were considered 'less' than whites at the time, and their 'betters' didn't care to change that. I don't think he's trying to say that it wasn't morally incorrect and shouldn't have been stopped at all costs, only that it was an acceptable status quo for the people who mattered in Fereldan at the time.

Modifié par eschilde, 10 janvier 2010 - 10:30 .