1429 réponses à ce sujet

[eschilde]

@Ariella

There's another thread on slavery and the Chant, but read this

[Tirigon]

ReubenLiew wrote...

*sigh*
Did YOU read MY explanation then?
You said that killing a person deserves the same sentence.
Killing a person is not the same as murder.
Killing a person might be accidental, it might be self defence, it might be murder, it might be manslaughter, it can be many things and each one of them has their own punishments.
The difference is that YOU are not reading what WE are saying, instead you are trying to defennd yourself so violently you're beginning to look like an ass doing it.

There is a difference when a man kills another man, whether it was by accident or design.
If you are arguing that one murderer is the same as another murderer, then fine, whatever. But if a general sends his soldiers to die, it doesn't make him the same as a man who stabs another man in the gut.

I see your point. But that is not at all different from what I was saying. I wrote what the punishment is. Lifelong for murder and a few years or less for an accident ARE a difference, aren´t they?

What I was saying is that there is no difference between stabbing a man in the guts after plannig this for years and stabbing him in the guts just for fun without planning it.

[AndreaRhaegar]

eschilde wrote...

@AndreaRhaegar
I think we've spent a good portion of this thread trying to prove that Loghain didn't have treasonous intent >.>

Quit the field where your King is fighting, IS High Treason, no matter the intent or the purpose.

It is possible that Loghain did it for good (better, he did it for what he thought it was good for Ferelden in his opinion), but when you swore an oath to a King, you swore to obey him.

The order at Ostagar was to fight the Darkspawn.

If you don't comply, you are a traitor, period.

[Tirigon]

eschilde wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

eschilde wrote...

@Tirigon
Okay.. if you didn't get the essence of what I was trying to explain to you from spending all that time looking stuff up on the internet, I give up.

Actually, I was eating. I did not have to look this up. But believe whatever you want. Go ahead. Be a prove to the common prejudice that Americans are the most stupid people on earth.

Sorry, but now you completely destroyed your entire argument by saying that.

Better put your flamesuit on ^^

Sorry for breaking your illusions, but you started flaming.

[Tirigon]

AndreaRhaegar wrote...

eschilde wrote...

@AndreaRhaegar
I think we've spent a good portion of this thread trying to prove that Loghain didn't have treasonous intent >.>

Quit the field where your King is fighting, IS High Treason, no matter the intent or the purpose.

It is possible that Loghain did it for good (better, he did it for what he thought it was good for Ferelden in his opinion), but when you swore an oath to a King, you swore to obey him.

The order at Ostagar was to fight the Darkspawn.

If you don't comply, you are a traitor, period.

Finally someone talking sense.

[eschilde]

AndreaRhaegar wrote...

eschilde wrote...

@AndreaRhaegar
I think we've spent a good portion of this thread trying to prove that Loghain didn't have treasonous intent >.>

Quit the field where your King is fighting, IS High Treason, no matter the intent or the purpose.

It is possible that Loghain did it for good (better, he did it for what he thought it was good for Ferelden in his opinion), but when you swore an oath to a King, you swore to obey him.

The order at Ostagar was to fight the Darkspawn.

If you don't comply, you are a traitor, period.

You think so? I don't believe Cailan said, "You must commit all your troops against the darkspawn at Ostagar even if it is against your judgment as a general and you will likely lose." I am not saying that is what Loghain thought, but that Cailan wasn't very explicit in how the darkspawn were to be fought. Loghain wasn't explicitly ordered to charge no matter what the conditions, either. That's partially because Cailan trusted he would, no matter what, but it doesn't change the fact that this comes down to whether you take a liberal or conservative view of what was said.

Modifié par eschilde, 11 janvier 2010 - 09:32 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...
What I was saying is that there is no difference between stabbing a man in the guts after plannig this for years and stabbing him in the guts just for fun without planning it.

You do realise that this has nothing to do with intent and is thus irrelevent to the tagent discussion?
Intent is WHY something was done. Not how.

[Ariella]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Intent is the basic point behind any death. This is why there are degrees of intent. Example, in certain parts of the US during the winter months in hillarea the road get covered in ice. A car is coming down the road, the driver loses control do to the icy conditions and plows into another car killing the person inside. Is the driver guilty of murder? Of course not. It is ruled an accident. caused by and Act of God.
Now I am the driver of a car and I run over my business partner because he cheated me out of millions. Murder? Yes! But now we come to intent. Is it an act of passion? Or premeditated murder? If the partner just got out my car after telling me he bilked me out of millions and I run over him it may be seen as a crime of passion. Crimes of passion are not considered first degree murder. But if I laid in wait until the partner cam out of his house and ran over him that is premeditated and is first degree murder. Intent plays a big part in the decision.

Realmzmaster.... stop trying to apply modern morality and legal process to Fereldan. It doesn't work. My advice is get a glance at the collector's strategy guide that talks about Fereldan legal process and justice. Betrayal of an oath is a violation of one of the underlying mores of Fereldan society. He also deserted in the face of the enemy, which is treason. His reasons don't matter.

[eschilde]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
What I was saying is that there is no difference between stabbing a man in the guts after plannig this for years and stabbing him in the guts just for fun without planning it.

You do realise that this has nothing to do with intent and is thus irrelevent to the tagent discussion?
Intent is WHY something was done. Not how.

Stop trying >.> this is not someone who we can convince.

[Realmzmaster]

The complete line is:

Either Loghain or Uldred wanted to be in control of the tower, so that they could make sure the beacon wouldn't be lit -- if it came to that. If the beacon wasn't lit, Loghain couldn't be blamed for not joining the battle in time.



If you are trying to control the beacon so it could not be lit and then setup a plan where it is vital that the beacon be lit to signal an army that is treachery. Loghain's second in command is aware that the plan is when the beacon is lit that is the signal to attack.

The defintion of treachery I use is: violation of allegiance or of faith or of confidence. Loghain violated the faith others had placed in him.

[Tirigon]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Loghain is NOT a mass murderer, at worst you can make him a traitor for leaving Cailan to die and enslaving the elves, but you are really going into extremes

Also joining the grey wardens means he either dies in 2-3 years ( if you go through the ritual ) or you sacrifice his soul to kill the archdemon. What I am picking is allowing him to realize that he made the wrong choices after Ostagar ( his choices before and at Ostagar I agree with )

I hold him responsible for the deaths in the civil war.

Anyways, please answer my question, how would you treat a mass murderer (no matter if Loghain is one or not)?

[KnightofPhoenix]

AndreaRhaegar wrote...

eschilde wrote...

@AndreaRhaegar
I think we've spent a good portion of this thread trying to prove that Loghain didn't have treasonous intent >.>

Quit the field where your King is fighting, IS High Treason, no matter the intent or the purpose.

It is possible that Loghain did it for good (better, he did it for what he thought it was good for Ferelden in his opinion), but when you swore an oath to a King, you swore to obey him.

The order at Ostagar was to fight the Darkspawn.

If you don't comply, you are a traitor, period.

Maric committed High Treason by defying Orlesian Imperial law.
Rebels who defy a tyrant commit High Treason.

So what's your point? 
The fact that somethign is treasoneous to the law doesn't mean anything in terms of the merit of the action itself.  

[Tirigon]

eschilde wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
What I was saying is that there is no difference between stabbing a man in the guts after plannig this for years and stabbing him in the guts just for fun without planning it.

You do realise that this has nothing to do with intent and is thus irrelevent to the tagent discussion?
Intent is WHY something was done. Not how.

Stop trying >.> this is not someone who we can convince.

@ Phoenix: Ok I see the problem. It seems I misunderstood "intent". I thought you mean with "intent" wether someone has planned his deed or not. I apologise.

@ Eschilde: Thank you, same.

[AndreaRhaegar]

eschilde wrote...
 I am not saying that is what Loghain thought, but that Cailan wasn't very explicit in how the darkspawn were to be fought. Loghain wasn't explicitly ordered to charge no matter what the conditions, either.

Cailan was explicit, indeed.

The battle plan clearly said: "when the beacon at the tower of Ishkal is lit, you have to join the battle"

That was the order, no matter what.

Loghain refused to obey, he quit the field instead of joining the battle, he is a traitor.

Ther's not much else to say.

[eschilde]

Realmzmaster wrote...

The complete line is:
Either Loghain or Uldred wanted to be in control of the tower, so that they could make sure the beacon wouldn't be lit -- if it came to that. If the beacon wasn't lit, Loghain couldn't be blamed for not joining the battle in time.

If you are trying to control the beacon so it could not be lit and then setup a plan where it is vital that the beacon be lit to signal an army that is treachery. Loghain's second in command is aware that the plan is when the beacon is lit that is the signal to attack.
The defintion of treachery I use is: violation of allegiance or of faith or of confidence. Loghain violated the faith others had placed in him.

I agree with this, but Loghain wasn't that insistent on Uldred being in charge of the beacon, nor was he of using his own men. He could easily have said, "I'm sorry, your majesty, but I trust the men I have already placed there." The possible not lighting of the beacon was a contingency of a contingency, not something that he was dead set on. 

[ReubenLiew]

Tirigon wrote...
I see your point. But that is not at all different from what I was saying. I wrote what the punishment is. Lifelong for murder and a few years or less for an accident ARE a difference, aren´t they?

What I was saying is that there is no difference between stabbing a man in the guts after plannig this for years and stabbing him in the guts just for fun without planning it.

Now HERE is where law gets interesting. There is actually a difference. Murder comes in varying forms. Premeditated murder is the one where you plan ahead of time, with clear conscience and rational thought, with time to formulate counter arguments or to sooth himself.

This is, in the american justice system, called First Degree Murder. I'm using the UK justice system, (well one of it's colonies anyway, but they're mostly the same) it also has the same thing, but I'm not sure if it's called the same. German law should also have the same thing.

Killing a person spontaneously also has a difference. One, he could be insane. Insane people, by law, are not responsible for their own actions. There are also murders done through passion. Maybe the victim started the fight, and it escalated where the killer was unable to control his actions anymore. This intent also has to be evaluated seperately.

If a man goes around with someone and kills them, it could be first degree murder because he might've planned to kill SOMEBODY. It might not be the victim specifically, it could've been anyone, but it was still premeditated. Nobody just goes and kills someone for no reason unless they are clinically insane, in which a seperate law governs them as well. They could be doing it for fun, like the Manson guy, who does it out of a sick perversion, but he is in a rational mindset if not fully logical, and therefore is charged on manslaughter, or even murder if he'd taken his time to plan out his killing.

Law is convulated and extremely complex, it cannot be waved off and said that this is exactly what will happen to someone if they do this. If it was that easy there'd be no need for lawyers. Lawyers defend people based on their intent if they are beyond the shadow of doubt guilty as charged, to understand how severely he deserves his sentence, therefore why murder can range between 15 to life, intent changes the time they spend incarcerated.

Modifié par ReubenLiew, 11 janvier 2010 - 09:39 .

[AndreaRhaegar]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Maric committed High Treason by defying Orlesian Imperial law.
Rebels who defy a tyrant commit High Treason.

So what's your point? 
The fact that somethign is treasoneous to the law doesn't mean anything in terms of the merit of the action itself.  

If Maric had lost his battle, he would be charged to be a traitor by the Orlesian.

Loghain lost his battle, in the end, so he could be charged the same way.

There are no absolute "good" or "evil" acts, there are acts that defy a certain Law, and if the faction that uphold that Law win, who acted against that Law is a traitor.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

eschilde wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
What I was saying is that there is no difference between stabbing a man in the guts after plannig this for years and stabbing him in the guts just for fun without planning it.

You do realise that this has nothing to do with intent and is thus irrelevent to the tagent discussion?
Intent is WHY something was done. Not how.

Stop trying >.> this is not someone who we can convince.

@ Phoenix: Ok I see the problem. It seems I misunderstood "intent". I thought you mean with "intent" wether someone has planned his deed or not. I apologise.

Actually, it is quite confusing yes, as we are discussing two things at the same time. Whether Loghain planned to do kill Cailan all long. And what were his motivation.

But legally speaking, intent does mean whether it was planned or not. You are correct. But I think people were arguing that Loghain's motivation wasn't treasoneous, nor was his action. 

To sum up my position.
Loghain did not intend on killing Cailan, nor on retreated from Ostagar, as Mr. Gaider said.
Loghain did all of the aabove because he saw it as necessary for the survival of Ferelden.

EDIT: Actually, I was the one who was mistaken. Sorry.
The question of why does play a part in intent, but the how a crime was committed is also considered by it.
Confused it with causal link / motivation.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 janvier 2010 - 09:55 .

[RangerSG]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

In medieval times no leader would have killed Loghain, when he can make him submit to him.

Oh, there's lots of historical examples to the contrary. Now they often led to further problems down the line. But yielding didn't mean automatic good graces. And Sten isn't human. Qunari don't believe in ambition (at least within their race). So his judgment is skewed by his own hive-mentality.

[KnightofPhoenix]

AndreaRhaegar wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Maric committed High Treason by defying Orlesian Imperial law.
Rebels who defy a tyrant commit High Treason.

So what's your point? 
The fact that somethign is treasoneous to the law doesn't mean anything in terms of the merit of the action itself.  

If Maric had lost his battle, he would be charged to be a traitor by the Orlesian.

Loghain lost his battle, in the end, so he could be charged the same way.

There are no absolute "good" or "evil" acts, there are acts that defy a certain Law, and if the faction that uphold that Law win, who acted against that Law is a traitor.

Sure, but taht doesn't judge Loghain as a person and his merits as a person.

I do not believe in "good" and "evil". Nor do I believe that the Law is the best way to judge anything.

[eschilde]

 All right, if we're arguing the point of High Treason, let's use the UK model for High Treason:

"when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir";

"if a man do violate the King’s companion, or the King’s eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King’s eldest son and heir";[7]

"if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere";

and "if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King’s justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".

And also this one, which was apparently added later:"if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty (whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging".

As far as I can tell, disobeying a military order isn't treason if it isn't willfully causing a foreign power to wage war against you. He did possibly commit High Treason by sending assassins after Alistair, but I'm not sure how that works with unofficial heirs to the throne.

Disobeying a military order does have its own punishments but that's a whole other situation.

Modifié par eschilde, 11 janvier 2010 - 09:46 .

[ReubenLiew]

Loghain did not directly cause the death of his king, nor did he directly betray his King.
Not coming down to save your king at the expense of you, and your entire army's life, is not high treason.
And since Cailan is dead, Loghain is currently the highest ranking Military commander of the unit, so he can't betray himself, so by Law, Loghain has broken nothing, except Medieval conceptions of honor and loyalty.

Well not technically anyway.

-edit- Hmm maybe I should clarify my position again.
Not coming down to DIE with your king at the expense of you and your army is not high treason.

Modifié par ReubenLiew, 11 janvier 2010 - 09:50 .

[AndreaRhaegar]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Sure, but taht doesn't judge Loghain as a person and his merits as a person.

I do not believe in "good" and "evil". Nor do I believe that the Law is the best way to judge anything.

That's your choice, everyone can be a Loghain supporter, even if he IS (for the Law of his Country), a traitor.

You can defend him on a human base, not on a legal base.

[Tirigon]

ReubenLiew wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
I see your point. But that is not at all different from what I was saying. I wrote what the punishment is. Lifelong for murder and a few years or less for an accident ARE a difference, aren´t they?

What I was saying is that there is no difference between stabbing a man in the guts after plannig this for years and stabbing him in the guts just for fun without planning it.

Now HERE is where law gets interesting. There is actually a difference. Murder comes in varying forms. Premeditated murder is the one where you plan ahead of time, with clear conscience and rational thought, with time to formulate counter arguments or to sooth himself.

This is, in the american justice system, called First Degree Murder. I'm using the UK justice system, (well one of it's colonies anyway, but they're mostly the same) it also has the same thing, but I'm not sure if it's called the same. German law should also have the same thing.

Killing a person spontaneously also has a difference. One, he could be insane. Insane people, by law, are not responsible for their own actions. There are also murders done through passion. Maybe the victim started the fight, and it escalated where the killer was unable to control his actions anymore. This intent also has to be evaluated seperately.

If a man goes around with someone and kills them, it could be first degree murder because he might've planned to kill SOMEBODY. It might not be the victim specifically, it could've been anyone, but it was still premeditated. Nobody just goes and kills someone for no reason unless they are clinically insane, in which a seperate law governs them as well. They could be doing it for fun, like the Manson guy, who does it out of a sick perversion, but he is in a rational mindset if not fully logical, and therefore is charged on manslaughter, or even murder if he'd taken his time to plan out his killing.

Law is convulated and extremely complex, it cannot be waved off and said that this is exactly what will happen to someone if they do this. If it was that easy there'd be no need for lawyers. Lawyers defend people based on their intent if they are beyond the shadow of doubt guilty as charged, to understand how severely he deserves his sentence, therefore why murder can range between 15 to life, intent changes the time they spend incarcerated.

Thank you for answering logically instead of flaming.

The German system is quite similar, but there are differences.

The most important is, that a planned murder can be both manslaugther and murder.

In Germany, it depends on various things which one it is.

Murder is, if you endanger the public (e. g. using bombs = always murder), if you commit a killing to hide a crime or if you kill in a cruel way. As well as some more things, don´t know them all....

Manslaught can be planned, too. Without necessarily being murder.

An example: A woman is constantly mistreated by her Husband. She plans to kill him. One day she sees a chance and does so - in a non-cruel way, without endangering the public etc.. She will be accused of manslaught - not murder -  though she planned the deed.

Now, on the other hand. Let´s imagine you go out, someone annoys you so hard that you - spontanuously - decide to kill him. You tie him up and torture him for some hours, then finish him off. You didn´t plan the deed in advance.
Accusation will be murder, because you killed in a cruel way.

[AndreaRhaegar]

eschilde wrote...
Disobeying a military order does have its own punishments but that's a whole other situation.

Disobeying a military order that causes the King's Death is High Treason, i think.

And Loghain of course knew that quitting the field at that moment meant to let the King to die.