1429 réponses à ce sujet

[DariusKalera]

Tirigon wrote...

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.

Removing leaders will NOT magically cause a war to end.  It depends on many factors with the leaders being just one of them.  In many cases, removing the leader that started the war is the wrong thing to do.  The reason being is that whomever is put in charge by the people that removed the previous leader may not be respected by the populace nor the military, in which case, the war continues on.

If Germany had killed Chruchill during early WWII would England have surrendered?  Doubtful.  Even if Germany had put a new leader in his place the population and military would not have accepted him.

Same thing can be said if the Allies had managed to kill Hitler early on in the war. 

When Germany took control of France and Poland and installed new leaders there were they successful?  Not really.  They had to deal with partisans for the entire time that they were inside those countries.  Of course, these may be different than the fanatics that you're talking about but since they were loosely organized and had very few weapons I am assuming that they are comparable.

National pride, or religious devotion, can be a huge motivator during a time of conflict and even if one side is losing and they have to continously replace thier leaders, as long as that pride and devotion remain and they have the will to fight, the war will continue.

Modifié par DariusKalera, 10 janvier 2010 - 11:15 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...
Why? Are you so damn single-minded that you can´t defend the elfs´ right to have their own culture, the mages´ right to be free and the templars´ importance to protect the people from the few mages who abuse their power to terrorize innocents?

Ever heard of the term "peaceful coexistence"?

Maybe everyone has a right to live his life like he wishes to? What does it matter to which group you belong?

Why should I defend the elves if they can't defend themselves? If they can prove that they deserve freedom, then I will respect them for it. I do not have to hate anyone to think that way. And I just said, I respect the dalish, presicely because they impose themselves. and I would respect the mages if they free themselves, even if I am a non-mage, but I would also support the Templars annihilating them. But I still repsect them and not hate them.
 
"Peaceful coexistance" can only happen when all sides involved are capable ofdefending themselves and imposing themselves. And when interest is involved to all sides. Why should someone strong coexist with someone weak unless it's for his own interests? (which thankfully, is mostly the case. Diplomacy is more beneficial then killing most of the time).

And don't try to lecture me morally.

[Realmzmaster]

KnightofPhoenix,

Last time I check most wars were fought over ideals. WW2 was fought over the idea of a superior race and the 1000 year Reich. The Revolutionary War was fought over the ideals of taxation without representation. The Civil War was fought over ideals. The South wanted slavery because Southerns felt Negroes were inferior and were needed to fuel their economic engine. The North fought to perserve the nation, not so much because of slavery. Lincoln could have just as easily let the country be split in two. Both parts could then via for the West. What is the purpose of war unless someone wants to spread their ideals to other lands.

If you say it is because of food and resources, it is far easier to trade for those items than to occupy a foreign country.

[eschilde]

Realmzmaster wrote...

KnightofPhoenix,
Last time I check most wars were fought over ideals. WW2 was fought over the idea of a superior race and the 1000 year Reich. The Revolutionary War was fought over the ideals of taxation without representation. The Civil War was fought over ideals. The South wanted slavery because Southerns felt Negroes were inferior and were needed to fuel their economic engine. The North fought to perserve the nation, not so much because of slavery. Lincoln could have just as easily let the country be split in two. Both parts could then via for the West. What is the purpose of war unless someone wants to spread their ideals to other lands.
If you say it is because of food and resources, it is far easier to trade for those items than to occupy a foreign country.

Wars are not only fought over ideals, they're also (and especially) fought because of resources like land and money.
WW2 was fought because Germany was bankrupted due to reparations from WW1. The idea of a superior race was to consolidate the German people into supporting WW2.
Revolutionary War was fought because the English were taxing the Americans on things tea, basically taking huge advantage of the fact that as a colony they were getting a lot of raw goods for cheap and selling a lot of manufactured goods expensively.
The Civil War was very similar to the Revolutionary War, north was selling a lot of manufactured goods to the south expensively and buying raw goods cheaply. Without slavery the southern plantations would have a lot of trouble with getting the amount of goods they had to sell.
It is not easier to trade for goods if you're being taxed to all hell for imports.

Edit: wars have a lot of reasons, not only ideals, though ideals can play a part; however, wars are not ONLY fought because of ideals, because a country that wars extensively always loses in the long run. If a country doesn't have something to gain like money or land, you probably won't see them fight. 

Modifié par eschilde, 10 janvier 2010 - 11:23 .

[Tirigon]

I will only answer this, because once again you are telling me what you think is good and what you think is evil in the other arguments, which is irrelevent. I couldn't care less to be blunt.

I´m not telling what I think is good or evil, I´m saying what is a fact. Robbery is a crime, no matter what your attitude is. And so is the murdering of political opponents. And at least the US do even have the "Pursuit of Happiness" in their constitution, so it is not my attitude but constitutional law in one of the world´s superpowers that everyone has a right to lead his life. If you don´t believe it, go argue with the Supreme Court.

Only when such ideals bring improvement. And only when they have the luxury to believe in them. I am not dismising the power of ideals. I am saying that when hyou are confronted with a life / death situation, you will forget about your ideals or at the very least compromise them.

No. I was talking about people who did NOT sacrifice their ideals in a life/death situation.
One example: The Ucrainian rebels 1917 to 1922 did NEVER kill caught enemy soldiers but always freed or recruited them. Only officers were shot - and even these were freed when their soldiers begged for them. They did NEVER kill or rob innocent people. And it paid off. They got what they needed without stealing it; the population helped voluntarily.
Finally they lost the war because of the Soviets cruelty and better weapons, though. But they resisted for 5 years without ever acting against their ideals.

THe only exception is religion, because pleasing God is more improtant than anythign else. So it's the only thing I can imagine people unwilling to compromise. And even then, the Prophets themselves did a big amount of compromises to win.

Let´s spare religion, please. There is no evidence whether God exists.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Realmzmaster wrote...

KnightofPhoenix,
Last time I check most wars were fought over ideals. WW2 was fought over the idea of a superior race and the 1000 year Reich. The Revolutionary War was fought over the ideals of taxation without representation. The Civil War was fought over ideals. The South wanted slavery because Southerns felt Negroes were inferior and were needed to fuel their economic engine. The North fought to perserve the nation, not so much because of slavery. Lincoln could have just as easily let the country be split in two. Both parts could then via for the West. What is the purpose of war unless someone wants to spread their ideals to other lands.
If you say it is because of food and resources, it is far easier to trade for those items than to occupy a foreign country.

Nope, WW2 was fought for the lebensraum, the vital space that Germany needed to survive according to Hitler. And for revisionissm, because Germany was treated badly after Versaille. The racial supremacy thing was not necessary to launch the war.

The Revolutionary wars was started by European powers who were afraid that revolution would sweep their own country. So they decided to destroy the revolution. And failed. And let me remind you what the French Revolutionaries did to win that war (Great Terror, persectuion of the Church, kiling the Monarchy, acts of mass murder against royalist peasants).. It made the Monarchy seems so much better. EDIT: apparently you were talking nabout the American revolutionary war? I thought you were talkign about the European / French one. Sorry. But it was addressed beautifully by eschilde.

Lincoln did this for purely political reasons and not ideals. He wanted to save the American state. He couldn't afford havign the South just leave (even thought it was their right). If Lincoln indeed cared about ideals, he would have respected the constitution and would have allowed the South to seperate, as it's their right to. He didn't. And because  he didn't need slavery liek the South did, because of polciies that the North were making. The North, not respecting the ideals of Free trade, refusede to buy machines from europe and relied on local producers, which made crappy machines and at higher prices, so the South had no chocie but to relly on slavery to be able to buy those machines. Again, if Lincoln was such a liberal, he wouldn't have impsoed barriers on European products.

Ideals are tools used to justify war, yes. But it's not the main reason. Never was.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2010 - 11:31 .

[Asylumer]

novaseeker wrote...

Under US law, that defense is rather narrow.  The M'Naghten test of insanity, as a defense, is limited to cases where it can be demonstrated that a mental defect created an inability to tell right from wrong, such that one's actions were essentially involuntary -- that you did not know what you were doing, not that you thought what you were doing was right, according to your own "logic".

So Loghain couldn't qualify at all since he had to know his actions were legally wrong. Gotcha (I think).

Admittedly there are still many reasons a player could find to kill Loghain that don't involve Cailan's death. The slavery, the assassins, the poisoning of Eamon... all are pretty ruthless things to do. Really, the player should ask him or herself whether Loghain's desperate actions for survival justified the cost. In real life our leadership has often resorted to terrible measures in times of crisis. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, but for the most part is regarded as a hero for what he did. The American Government suspended the rights of Japanese during WW2. etc. It's only in the current day that we're beginning to take a hardline stance against that sort of attitude, or at least we'd like to think so.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...
I´m not telling what I think is good or evil, I´m saying what is a fact. Robbery is a crime, no matter what your attitude is. And so is the murdering of political opponents. And at least the US do even have the "Pursuit of Happiness" in their constitution, so it is not my attitude but constitutional law in one of the world´s superpowers that everyone has a right to lead his life. If you don´t believe it, go argue with the Supreme Court.

What is legal and what is moral are two different things. Laws are as easily forgotten as ideals in times of crisis.

Tirigon wrote...
No. I was talking about people who did NOT sacrifice their ideals in a life/death situation.
One example: The Ucrainian rebels 1917 to 1922 did NEVER kill caught enemy soldiers but always freed or recruited them. Only officers were shot - and even these were freed when their soldiers begged for them. They did NEVER kill or rob innocent people. And it paid off. They got what they needed without stealing it; the population helped voluntarily.
Finally they lost the war because of the Soviets cruelty and better weapons, though. But they resisted for 5 years without ever acting against their ideals.

lol You just said why they did those things. Because it was EFFICIENT to do so. that's my point.

Tirigon wrote...Let´s spare religion, please. There is no evidence whether God exists.

Duh, when did I ever said so?
I said, that it's easier to believe a religious person not compromising his ideal ,because he believes in God.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

"Peaceful coexistance" can only happen when all sides involved are capable ofdefending themselves and imposing themselves. And when interest is involved to all sides. Why should someone strong coexist with someone weak unless it's for his own interests? (which thankfully, is mostly the case. Diplomacy is more beneficial then killing most of the time).

And don't try to lecture me morally.

Why should the strong NOT coexist with the weak? There is nothing he gains from suppressing them except his fun.
And, honestly, people who suppress others for fun are criminals and deserve to die. Period.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...
Why should the strong NOT coexist with the weak? There is nothing he gains from suppressing them except his fun.
And, honestly, people who suppress others for fun are criminals and deserve to die. Period.

Sometimes there is something to gain. Like sellign them to finance a war. It's not for fun, just business.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

What is legal and what is moral are two different things. Laws are as easily forgotten as ideals in times of crisis.

That is, unfortunately, often the case. But it´s not the reason why laws are made.

lol You just said why they did those things. Because it was EFFICIENT to do so. that's my point.

No it wasnt. It would have been more efficient to kill every Soviet so they are feared, and to kill them by any means necessary.

Duh, when did I ever said so?
I said, that it's easier to believe a religious person not compromising his ideal ,because he believes in God.

You did not actually say so, but you talked about religion :-)

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Sometimes there is something to gain. Like sellign them to finance a war. It's not for fun, just business.

Then people who oppress others for monetary gain are criminals and deserve to die, too.
BTW, slavery is outlawed. In Ferelden as well as in the real world. So I´m not alone with this idea  ;-)

Modifié par Tirigon, 10 janvier 2010 - 11:33 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And you are assuming that Loghain didn't already do that?

Yes, I am, since we see in Lothering, people talking of press gangs roaming the countryside grabbing anybody they can to conscript into the war effort. No evidence or mention with the alienage, and, if you are selling people into slavery, they obviously won't be of much use as conscripts, will they?

It is known that Tevinter uses elves as slaves and not as an army. And even if they did, it will not be a threat to Ferelden, as Tevinter is occupied with fighting the Qunari.

I'm not talking about Tevinter armies marching into Ferelden. I'm talking about blood mages and Tevinter agents influencing people in power in Ferelden to make descisions and take actions that will not be in the best interest of Ferelden, but further the interests of Tevinter. Especially since they are dealing with the qunari, a Tevinter blood mage or other agent could be used to puish ferelden into commiting resources, help, support, or whatever to assist the imperium, even if such activities might be harmful or weaken the country.

Once again, I never said Loghain was efficient.
I was arguing the logic of his action, which had no problem except his ignorance vis a vis the Grey Wardens.
But yes I know, Loghain's plan had too many faults in it.

More than his ignorance of the wardens, though. You need a united army, period. Thus, his logic was severely flawed, if he did not forsee that the same armies he needed might turn against him. Loghain is not a complete retard. He has been around long enough, military man or no, to know how the game is played. He is a realist, and a realist would realize that his good name and stated goals would not be worth a ****** in a coffee cup to get what he needed.

Didn't max out his coercision skill I guess.
I agree with you. Loghain is a miltiary man, not a true politician.

No, and as a military man, the only coersion skill he needed was his blade at someone's throat. Definitely not a politician by any stretch of the word, which is why you need military men to fight the wars, and politicians to bull**** and sell the idea to everyone else.

He didn't think it was a blight at first. Had he known, he would have reconsidered or changed a part of his plan.
His paranoia of the Orlesians was justified. Not on an emotional level only, but on a political level. It's not wise to allow legions of Chevaliers to just walk in the country.

And let's not forget that it's a game, aka all of Ferelden is useless without the PC and it cannot win without the PC. He wasn't delusional. He just doesn't know that there is a god like being roaming Ferelden.  

No one thought it was a Blight at first, except Duncan, and for obvious reasons, he was mum on why he couldn't offer more concrete proof.

However, even had Loghain known it was a Blight, I'm not sure even that would have snapped him out of his hardcore refusal of letting Orlesians in. From what I gathered talking to him, he seems to hate Orlais more than he loves his country. I think if the Archdemon flew over denerim and crapped on the palace, he'd still stubbornly refuse Orlesian help.

Loghain reminds me of certain mentalities amongst some high ranking military brass during the Cold War, when the threat of the US and USSR nuking one another and invading was the big fear of the day. There were certain individuals who held the belief, that they would rather see America nuked and completely annihilated, a scorched wasteland of radioactive corpses, than allow the Reds possession of even an acre of land. Some of them even suggested plans for a last ditch effort to basically nuke and destroy major American cities and regions if conquest was inevitable, rather than allow Russian occupation.

From talking to Loghain, he came off as subscribing to that school of thought, whether he was conciously aware of it or not. In the end, he'd rather let the Blight take ferelden than Orlais, however small that chance was. I understand why Loghain hates Orlais. They brutally conquered and crushed his country for 80 years, abused the population, and raped his mother, then killed her, right in front of him and his father.

But his hatred is personal, clouds his judgement, and makes him oblivious to the bigger picture, which, ironically, is the same thing people **** about when Alistair leaves your party if you don't kill Loghain. Loghain was not insane, he knew right from wrong. Nor was he a clueless, naieve idiot. But I do not believe it was a pure, unblemished love of country that drove him to do what he did, nor an unadulterated desire to end the Blight. There is simply too much personal baggage and history clouding his ability to act rationally, and in the best interests of those he claims to protect. Nor, do I think, he is totally unaware of the underlying causes of his poor judgement.

But he is too proud and stubborn to admit this and change. Even after beating some sense into him at Landsmeet, he still can't.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

That is, unfortunately, often the case. But it´s not the reason why laws are made.

ALws are first and foremost made to preserve order. If they fail to do that, then thy are forgotten. You should read the History of the Peloponesian War by Thucydides. Shows you how laws and convntiosn are forgotten in a time of crisis.

Tirigon wrote...No it wasnt. It would have been more efficient to kill every Soviet so they are feared, and to kill them by any means necessary.

Had they done that, Soviet retaliation would have been much severer and they would have lost either way. And as you said, they recruited Soviets even. So yes, it was efficient for the time being.

Duh, when did I ever said so?
I said, that it's easier to believe a religious person not compromising his ideal ,because he believes in God.

You did not actually say so, but you talked about religion :-)

And I explained why. Only religion, in theory, is hard to compromise if one is a believer. And of course, even religion is compromised on a daily basis.

[Thomas9321]

Asylumer wrote...

So either Loghain's guilt was completely changed at one point, or the developers intentionally sowed contradicting messages so discovering the truth wouldn't be as simple as scouring the comments.

I'm thinking they did absolutely that. How else could we all be playing the same game but come out with wildly different interpretations of the same character? Which is a wonderful thing if you ask me, this kind of debate over a game is great.

EDIT: Gah, this was only a 9 page thread when I quoted this. Clearly 'tis a hot topic.

Modifié par Thomas9321, 10 janvier 2010 - 11:38 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Sometimes there is something to gain. Like sellign them to finance a war. It's not for fun, just business.

Then people who oppress others for monetary gain are criminals and deserve to die, too.
BTW, slavery is outlawed. In Ferelden as well as in the real world. So I´m not alone with this idea  ;-)

I know. And?
Laws and morality change all the time. Especially in a death / life situation.

[Realmzmaster]

Note that Ferelden is made up of Freeholders. The power behind the throne in Ferelden is derived from the Freeholders. The power does not descend from the throne down. Any large important affairs are decided by the Freeholders through the teyrns, arls, and banns (at the annual Landsmeet). Loghain seeks to usurp the rights of the Freeholders using his army which is why the nobles are against him. He seeks to trample their rights. The Freeholders align themselves with a bann. The banns form Teyrns There are two Teyrns: Gwaren(Loghain) and Highever( formerly Cousland now Howe (until killed)).

Arls are influential banns given more authority by the teyrns. The Regent whose power descends from the King (or Queen) does not have the right to demand anything of the Freeholders. The King is seen as Teyrn of all of Ferelden, but only at the bidding of the Freeholders. The King basically is in control of day to day operations in Ferelden. He (she) does not have the power of a traditional monarchry.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And you are assuming that Loghain didn't already do that?

Yes, I am, since we see in Lothering, people talking of press gangs roaming the countryside grabbing anybody they can to conscript into the war effort. No evidence or mention with the alienage, and, if you are selling people into slavery, they obviously won't be of much use as conscripts, will they?

I meant you are assuming Loghain didn't steal from the nobles he killed.

It is known that Tevinter uses elves as slaves and not as an army. And even if they did, it will not be a threat to Ferelden, as Tevinter is occupied with fighting the Qunari.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

I'm not talking about Tevinter armies marching into Ferelden. I'm talking about blood mages and Tevinter agents influencing people in power in Ferelden to make descisions and take actions that will not be in the best interest of Ferelden, but further the interests of Tevinter. Especially since they are dealing with the qunari, a Tevinter blood mage or other agent could be used to puish ferelden into commiting resources, help, support, or whatever to assist the imperium, even if such activities might be harmful or weaken the country.

That's a big stretch. And people usually prefer dealing with the short hand threat and then worry about the long term threat. If a person is going to think that way, then no decision can possibly be made, because anything can degenrate into a bad hting.
There was no short term threat posed by the Tevinter slavers (there was by the rebellion, the darkspawn and Orlais). At all. Whether they might pose a long term threat is debatable. Possible, but unlikely.

And I mostly agree with everything else you said.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2010 - 11:48 .

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

ALws are first and foremost made to preserve order. If they fail to do that, then thy are forgotten. You should read the History of the Peloponesian War by Thucydides. Shows you how laws and convntiosn are forgotten in a time of crisis.

Funnily, I read it, though that´s a few years back now....
Besides, you miss my point. I agree with you that laws and morale are usually forgotten.
But that´s how cruelties like the Holocaust could happen. Something like that could not have happened if people would understand and accept other people´s freedom.
That´s why there is a permanent attempt (by the UNO for example) to make laws that are NOT forgotten. That´s why War criminals are accused (though, in fact, too many can avoid being sued). Etc...

Had they done that, Soviet retaliation would have been much severer and they would have lost either way. And as you said, they recruited Soviets even. So yes, it was efficient for the time being.

Their retaliation was cruel enough. The soviets won by attacking TWICE during a cease-fire and slaughtering 100000s of innocents. After their victory, further 100000 were deported.

And I explained why. Only religion, in theory, is hard to compromise if one is a believer. And of course, even religion is compromised on a daily basis.

I always wondered why people can accept injustice and oppression, but risk their life for beliefs that are most probably wrong.
Stupid animals, humans......

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

ALws are first and foremost made to preserve order. If they fail to do that, then thy are forgotten. You should read the History of the Peloponesian War by Thucydides. Shows you how laws and convntiosn are forgotten in a time of crisis.

Funnily, I read it, though that´s a few years back now....
Besides, you miss my point. I agree with you that laws and morale are usually forgotten.
But that´s how cruelties like the Holocaust could happen. Something like that could not have happened if people would understand and accept other people´s freedom.
That´s why there is a permanent attempt (by the UNO for example) to make laws that are NOT forgotten. That´s why War criminals are accused (though, in fact, too many can avoid being sued). Etc....

Ok that's great. We agree on what IS. You say that humans OUGHT NOT To forget laws and morality. Ok, that's your ideal. I am not here to discuss for or against.

And I explained why. Only religion, in theory, is hard to compromise if one is a believer. And of course, even religion is compromised on a daily basis.

I always wondered why people can accept injustice and oppression, but risk their life for beliefs that are most probably wrong.
Stupid animals, humans......

Because for those humans who believe in God, making Him angry is the last thing you want to do. It suits what I have been saying all along perfectly. Interest and survival are the most important thing. Ideals are forgotten if they come against interest and survival. 
 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 10 janvier 2010 - 11:52 .

[DariusKalera]

Well, to be honest, you can never have a law that is not forgotten. The UNO can make all the laws they want but everyone knows that they do not really have the power to back them up.

[sirchet]

Ideals aren't usually forgotten, like many emotion driven things they evolve and change with age, circumstance and rational thought.



In short, as we grow up so do our ideals.

[Gold Dragon]

The Fact that nothing overtly happens to Fergus doesn't mean that nothing did, you know. Howe could easily have sent someone down to the Korcari Wilds to "make certain" Fergus couldn't make any trouble for Howe, but for a few possibilities:



1: Flemeth still knows a thing or two about hiding, and I'd imagine that hiding from humans (even assasins) would be much easier than against Darkspawn. As for Fergus not naming, well... Flemeth only told her identity when bluntly asked. Maybe Fergus didn't ask.



2. The Darkspawn ate the Crow for breakfast.



3. Fergus actually DID encounter the Crow, and left the Crow for Darkspawn Fodder. Not realising what had happened, he didn't think it worth mentioning.



4. The PC was making so much noise that Howe never got around to actually hiring someone to deal with the "lesser threat" that Fergus would have been at that time.



As for WHY Howe did this, well... I seem to recall a Codex entry detailing Bad Blood between the Couslands and Amaranthine.....

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

DariusKalera wrote...

Well, to be honest, you can never have a law that is not forgotten. The UNO can make all the laws they want but everyone knows that they do not really have the power to back them up.

Yes, laws are useless unless you have the will and the muscle to back them up. In many areas of the world, even in the West, many laws are broken openly and ignored because the local authorities either don't have the manpower, or the enforcers lack the will to enforce them.

Thus, in the case of the elves, selling the elves off into slavery was a broken law that would largely go unopposed by the majority, since no oen really cares what goes on in the alienage. When you go to Landsmeet, an organization of human nobles, try using the selling of elves into slavery arguement. It earns you a fail. Because, while slavery is against the law, given everything else going on, it's not a law that the nobility is particularly concerned with enforcing or prosecuting.

The Chantry doesn't seem that bothered, either. In the end, a law is only as good as the will and desire to follow and enforce it. otherwise, it's an empty declaration.