1429 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

Thanks for clarifying. I see it exactly like that.

However, unlike you, I think this does NOT mean he is not guilty. Can you understand that?

[eschilde]

@ReubenLiew
Well, I don't think he knew Cailan was dead, and it wouldn't change the fact that he had been given an order and did not obey it. However, that wasn't an act of high treason.
Loghain may have been guilty of conspiring of Cailan's death, but that's not provable since all we have is speculation, and his leaving the field at Ostagar was justifiable.

Modifié par eschilde, 11 janvier 2010 - 09:54 .

[Realmzmaster]

Ariella,

My response on intent was meant in respose to Tirigon in that all murders are not the same. I have read the strategy guide from cover to cover and it is inaccurate in many places based on the in-game codex and lore. I know about the violation of an oath. It is used to this very day in the United States Military. It is a court marshalable offense to break your oath.

But I also know unless you have the power in numbers to back up the charge it is a moot point. Loghain has a very large army at his disposal crushing other arls and banns. You will note that bringing up the Battle of Ostgar or anything about treason at the Landsmeet is a losing proposition.

[ReubenLiew]

Actually the woman being mistreated can be constituted as murder if she actually planned, step by step, every move she would take to murder. Like buy a gun/knife to stab him when he would do this, or to smother him in his own pillow when he's drunk this weekend. If she just SAW the oppurtunity to kill him it's counted as spontaneous and is considered manslaughter, as it wasn't really planned.
For the other case, It counts as murder because he did not kill him right away. If he had just killed him, it would be manslaughter. If he kidnapped him, brought him back and did whatever, it means that although it was spontaneous, he has the time to think through his actions. He could've walked away, he could've let him go, but he decided, in all that time, that he would ultimately kill his target, which is clearly within the bounds of murder. But in fact it could go the other way, if the man is clearly disturbed of mind and is incapable of rational thought, he can be classified as insane and cannot be charged with murder because he is not in control of his actions.

On regards of Loghain, it's not so much as what his intent was, is what you're charging him to be guilty OF? Is he guilty of Murder? He did not directly have to do with Cailan's death, the Darkspawn were. Is he guilty of high treason? Thats debatable until we know that he always wanted to possess the throne from Cailan.

Modifié par ReubenLiew, 11 janvier 2010 - 09:59 .

[eschilde]

AndreaRhaegar wrote...

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.

I think this is where it really gets murky. Cailan was already dead by the lighting of the beacon, although Loghain didn't know that. However, Loghain had reason to assume he already was, so if the King was already dead and he quit the field to preserve his troops then it wasn't high treason, because he was doing what was within his good judgment as the now highest-ranking military commander (I think that makes sense?) Loghain also could (potentially, this would be down to their military law) leave the field if he had no hope of winning without committing high treason. 

Basically, without more information I don't think we can prove this one either way :S not to mention the writ on HT that I quoted isn't Fereldan's law, it's the UK's >.>

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

Thanks for clarifying. I see it exactly like that.

However, unlike you, I think this does NOT mean he is not guilty. Can you understand that?

Of course I can. I never doubted that you thought that way and I didn't really argue against that. It will depend on each person and what they think, to determine Loghain's guilt. But not only his guilt, also what punishment he deserves. You think he deserves death, I don't.

And to explain my position better. Loghain did not kill the king. Loghain abandonned him. So killed him indirectly is the most you can say about it (but it was mostly Cailan's fault). And the act of retreating from Ostagar was a military consideration and not because he hated Cailan or because he intented on killing him.

[eschilde]

@Realmzmaster

Well, it may not win you votes at the Landsmeet but it can affect your judgment, and as the one in the position to deal justice, I would say it's relevant if your GW happens to care :3

[AndreaRhaegar]

eschilde wrote...

AndreaRhaegar wrote...

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.

I think this is where it really gets murky. Cailan was already dead by the lighting of the beacon, although Loghain didn't know that. However, Loghain had reason to assume he already was, so if the King was already dead and he quit the field to preserve his troops then it wasn't high treason, because he was doing what was within his good judgment as the now highest-ranking military commander (I think that makes sense?) Loghain also could (potentially, this would be down to their military law) leave the field if he had no hope of winning without committing high treason. 

Basically, without more information I don't think we can prove this one either way :S not to mention the writ on HT that I quoted isn't Fereldan's law, it's the UK's >.>

I could agree with you, but if i remember the cutscene correctly events happened in this order:

1) The Beacon is lit

2) Loghain quit the field, when he had to join the battle

3) Cailan's army  was surrounded and outnumbered, and the King dies.

So, the disobeying of Loghain caused, or at least aided, the King's Death.

[ReubenLiew]

eschilde wrote...

@ReubenLiew
Well, I don't think he knew Cailan was dead, and it wouldn't change the fact that he had been given an order and did not obey it. However, that wasn't an act of high treason.
Loghain may have been guilty of conspiring of Cailan's death, but that's not provable since all we have is speculation, and his leaving the field at Ostagar was justifiable.

Actually I don't have an opinion on this in any way, but to me Loghain is only guilty of obstructing the duties of the Grey Wardens.
He was not directly responsible for Cailan's death anymore than a General is for his soldiers when a situation turns sour.

[Tirigon]

ReubenLiew wrote...

Actually the woman being mistreated can be constituted as murder if she actually planned, step by step, every move she would take to murder. Like buy a gun/knife to stab him when he would do this, or to smother him in his own pillow when he's drunk this weekend. If she just SAW the oppurtunity to kill him it's counted as spontaneous and is considered manslaughter, as it wasn't really planned.

That is exactly the difference between German and American law. In German law, the fact she planned the deed does NOT mean it´s murder. And if she kills him while he assaults her, she does even have a slight chance to remain unpunished as it might count as self-defense.

It counts as murder because he did not kill him right away. If he had just killed him, it would be manslaughter. If he kidnapped him, brought him back and did whatever, it means that although it was spontaneous, he has the time to think through his actions. He could've walked away, he could've let him go, but he decided, in all that time, that he would ultimately kill his target, which is clearly within the bounds of murder.

In this case, the American law would make the same accusation as the German, but with different reason: The German law counts this act as murder because of the cruelty. NOT because he planned the killing. Even if you prepare a killing for years, it does NOT count as murder if it does not involve things like cruelty, hiding a crime etc...

Well, let me give a better example: You rob someone. In the action you loose your mask and the other one recognizes you. To make sure he can´t tell the police you strangle him to death. You never planned to do that; You "only" wanted to rob him. If I understand you correctly, American Law would treat this as Manslaught.
German law treats this as murder, because the killing was committed to hide another crime (the robbery).

[AndreaRhaegar]

ReubenLiew wrote...
He was not directly responsible for Cailan's death anymore than a General is for his soldiers when a situation turns sour.

The situation turned sour cause Loghain quit the field

[eschilde]

@ReubenLiew

I'm in complete agreement with you on that. But whether a fictional character might be guilty of some fictional laws in a fictional country is quite an interesting subject, don't you think? ^^

[Realmzmaster]

@Eschilde,

If you wish to roleplay it that way, yes it matters. But if you are trying to gain support and avoid a large confrontation no it does not matter. If you are trying to gain support you stick to the provable facts.

[ReubenLiew]

AndreaRhaegar wrote...

I could agree with you, but if i remember the cutscene correctly events happened in this order:

1) The Beacon is lit

2) Loghain quit the field, when he had to join the battle

3) Cailan's army  was surrounded and outnumbered, and the King dies.

So, the disobeying of Loghain caused, or at least aided, the King's Death.

Cutscenes tend to be very unreliable, but ok let's say that the cutscene is indeed in chronological order.
Was the beacon lit on time? Was it late? Was it iredeemably late?
Even if Loghain HAD joined the battle, it might not have made a difference to Cailan's fate other than that he could've told the other nobles at least he had tried, if the beacon was too late.

So you cannot say it aided in his death, not unless we can prove without a shadow of doubt that his intereference WOULD'VE saved the King.

[Ulicus]

Tirigon wrote...

Well, let me give a better example: You rob someone. In the action you loose your mask and the other one recognizes you. To make sure he can´t tell the police you strangle him to death. You never planned to do that; You "only" wanted to rob him. If I understand you correctly, American Law would treat this as Manslaught.
German law treats this as murder, because the killing was committed to hide another crime (the robbery).

Uh, if you're killing someone to cover up a robbery, then you're intending to kill someone.

Edit: Corrected my own mistake.

Modifié par Ulicus, 11 janvier 2010 - 10:29 .

[eschilde]

@AndreaRhaegar

I don't have the cut scene handy to comment, but given that we don't have a timeline to comment. isn't it possible that Loghain's retreat and Cailan's death happened concurrently, which at least raises other possibilities? I was trying to say, in any case, Loghain may have been within his rights if he was assuming that Cailan couldn't have held out that long.

[Xandurpein]

I think we all agree that technically Loghain committed treason, or at least planned treason. I do have to say though that it seems we all have quite different views on how bad this is. After all, Maric was gulity of treason for leading a revolution against the King of Orlais. And if your argument is that Maric isn't guilty of treason because he won, well... then we just waved goodbye to any discussion of morality at least.

I am not a supporter of Loghain who thinks all he did was right, or that he just got a few facts accidentally wrong, but that doesn't mean I think it is not possible to argue form a good and honourable perspective that once Loghain is stopped, you let him join the Grey Wardens rather than kill him.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 11 janvier 2010 - 10:10 .

[Realmzmaster]

Tirigon wrote...

ReubenLiew wrote...

Actually the woman being mistreated can be constituted as murder if she actually planned, step by step, every move she would take to murder. Like buy a gun/knife to stab him when he would do this, or to smother him in his own pillow when he's drunk this weekend. If she just SAW the oppurtunity to kill him it's counted as spontaneous and is considered manslaughter, as it wasn't really planned.

That is exactly the difference between German and American law. In German law, the fact she planned the deed does NOT mean it´s murder. And if she kills him while he assaults her, she does even have a slight chance to remain unpunished as it might count as self-defense.

It counts as murder because he did not kill him right away. If he had just killed him, it would be manslaughter. If he kidnapped him, brought him back and did whatever, it means that although it was spontaneous, he has the time to think through his actions. He could've walked away, he could've let him go, but he decided, in all that time, that he would ultimately kill his target, which is clearly within the bounds of murder.

In this case, the American law would make the same accusation as the German, but with different reason: The German law counts this act as murder because of the cruelty. NOT because he planned the killing. Even if you prepare a killing for years, it does NOT count as murder if it does not involve things like cruelty, hiding a crime etc...

Well, let me give a better example: You rob someone. In the action you loose your mask and the other one recognizes you. To make sure he can´t tell the police you strangle him to death. You never planned to do that; You "only" wanted to rob him. If I understand you correctly, American Law would treat this as Manslaught.
German law treats this as murder, because the killing was committed to hide another crime (the robbery).

No, in American Law it would be treated as murder because the death happen in the act of committing another crime. The intent is still there. The robber intended to commit a crime. If he/she was not in the act of committing the crime the death would not have occurred. The death is still ruled as murder.

[ReubenLiew]

Tirigon - Unfortunately, cruelty is highly subjective, and thus requires far more on the case itself than we can argue, so I think we've more or less exhausted all possibilities on the subject, but at least now we come to an understanding of why we each made our posts then?



Eschilde- Oh definitely. Why do anything else other than argue on imaginary morals of imaginary characters?

[Tirigon]

ReubenLiew wrote...

AndreaRhaegar wrote...

I could agree with you, but if i remember the cutscene correctly events happened in this order:

1) The Beacon is lit

2) Loghain quit the field, when he had to join the battle

3) Cailan's army  was surrounded and outnumbered, and the King dies.

So, the disobeying of Loghain caused, or at least aided, the King's Death.

Cutscenes tend to be very unreliable, but ok let's say that the cutscene is indeed in chronological order.
Was the beacon lit on time? Was it late? Was it iredeemably late?
Even if Loghain HAD joined the battle, it might not have made a difference to Cailan's fate other than that he could've told the other nobles at least he had tried, if the beacon was too late.

So you cannot say it aided in his death, not unless we can prove without a shadow of doubt that his intereference WOULD'VE saved the King.

On the other hand, even if Loghain´s attack would NOT have saved the King, it would have been better to try, at least. The plan was clear: Loghain attacks when the Beacon is lit. He CLEARLY did not do what he was supposed to do. You can argue about his reasons not to attack, but it is a fact that he disobeyed the orders to attack when the Beacon is lit. I´m not familiar with military law, I have to admit, but I bet disobeying orders is a crime, right?

[Tirigon]

Realmzmaster wrote...

No, in American Law it would be treated as murder because the death happen in the act of committing another crime. The intent is still there. The robber intended to commit a crime. If he/she was not in the act of committing the crime the death would not have occurred. The death is still ruled as murder.

Now I´m really confused... I clearly stated that the robber did NOT plan to kill his victim; He wanted to hide his identity and run off; only when this failed he killed his victim. So where is the intention of killing?

[AndreaRhaegar]

ReubenLiew wrote...

AndreaRhaegar wrote...

I could agree with you, but if i remember the cutscene correctly events happened in this order:

1) The Beacon is lit

2) Loghain quit the field, when he had to join the battle

3) Cailan's army  was surrounded and outnumbered, and the King dies.

So, the disobeying of Loghain caused, or at least aided, the King's Death.

Cutscenes tend to be very unreliable, but ok let's say that the cutscene is indeed in chronological order.
Was the beacon lit on time? Was it late? Was it iredeemably late?
Even if Loghain HAD joined the battle, it might not have made a difference to Cailan's fate other than that he could've told the other nobles at least he had tried, if the beacon was too late.

So you cannot say it aided in his death, not unless we can prove without a shadow of doubt that his intereference WOULD'VE saved the King.

I think i could definitely prove it, if i was a Lawyer in Ferelden

I think that the duty of Loghain was first to obey his King's order, second trying to save his life.

He didn't either.

And we are talking of military orders in time of war, the most mandatory at all.

A Military Court would put Loghain to death in no time.

Modifié par AndreaRhaegar, 11 janvier 2010 - 10:18 .

[RangerSG]

eschilde wrote...

AndreaRhaegar wrote...

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.

I think this is where it really gets murky. Cailan was already dead by the lighting of the beacon, although Loghain didn't know that. However, Loghain had reason to assume he already was, so if the King was already dead and he quit the field to preserve his troops then it wasn't high treason, because he was doing what was within his good judgment as the now highest-ranking military commander (I think that makes sense?) Loghain also could (potentially, this would be down to their military law) leave the field if he had no hope of winning without committing high treason. 

Basically, without more information I don't think we can prove this one either way :S not to mention the writ on HT that I quoted isn't Fereldan's law, it's the UK's >.>

Umm, I don't get why people insist on saying Cailan was dead by the lighting of the beacon when the Cailan death sequence occured AFTER Loghain's retreat order in the cutscene which occured AFTER the lighting of the beacon.

Now you can say all these happened in rapid succession, so that they were effectively concurrently, but you CANNOT say that Cailan died BEFORE the beacon. That's simply not true. 

You can even hear a cry from the men when the beacon is lit. Loghain orders the retreat and looks at the beacon. So he knows it was done. He knows the battle is still on below. He claims at that point the battle was already lost below. And he may be acting on the 'promise' Maric exacted from him before. Be that as it may, in a Medeival soceity, the King IS the Kingdom. You abandon the King, you abandon the Kingdom. There is no separating the Crowned head from the nation (indeed, the IDEA of a 'nation' was non-existent in Medeival socieity, the realm was the authority of the King, and your allegiance was to a lord, not a land).

[Ulicus]

Tirigon wrote...
On the other hand, even if Loghain´s attack would NOT have saved
the King, it would have been better to try, at least. The plan was
clear: Loghain attacks when the Beacon is lit. He CLEARLY did not do
what he was supposed to do. You can argue about his reasons not to
attack, but it is a fact that he disobeyed the orders to attack when
the Beacon is lit. I´m not familiar with military law, I have to admit,
but I bet disobeying orders is a crime, right?

From his perspective, why would it be better to attack? Because he might save the king and the deaths of his men might be worth it? Heh. I assumed you'd be against might makes right.

Tirigon wrote...
Now I´m really confused... I clearly
stated that the robber did NOT plan to kill his victim; He wanted to
hide his identity and run off; only when this failed he killed his
victim. So where is the intention of killing?

You said he deliberately killed a guy to cover up his crime. Thinking "I will kill that guy to cover up my crime" is planning to kill someone.

Modifié par Ulicus, 11 janvier 2010 - 10:22 .

[eschilde]

Moving this post

Modifié par eschilde, 11 janvier 2010 - 10:20 .