1429 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That's not how it is. The categorical imperative is supposed to show that any action contrary to duty would in fact be either a contradiction in conception: aka create a world where it would be logically flawed and incapable of being concieved. For instance, he argues that in a world where everyone lies, then there is no such thing as truth and noe one would believe the other. He considers this world to be logically inconceivable, thus, lying is contrary to duty, regardless of circumstances.
Or it would be a contradiction of will. For instance, being selfish would create a world where no one would help you, because everyone is selfish, but since everyone needs help and cannot find it, then they are going against their own interest, thus selfishness is creating a world contrary to your own will. Which is debatable, but this is how Kant argues it.

Kant is not talking about rights. Lying is always wrong, even if everyone else has the same right. Being intellectually laxzy is always conrary to duty, even if everyone else has the right to be one. He sees morality as being a priori in reason. That reason alone determine what is morality and there is no "rights" in the question.

Your interpretation is very uncommon and from what I understood of Kant, I would say incorrect.

Kant said: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. I think that means you can do whatever you want as long as you want it to become "universal law", id est everyone can do it. I could, for example, kill someone because I dislike his nose. However, I can only do that if I want "Kill people for having a nose you dislike" to become a law; I don´t want this, for fear someone stronger than me might dislike MY nose, so I don´t kill people whose nose I dislike. On the other hand, I can do whatever I want as long as it hurts noone, as I think "Do what you want without hurting others" is good as an universal law.

Anyways, I myself doubt this is what Kant means. But you can look at it like that. And, Imo, it makes more sense.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Thomas9321 wrote...
In addition, don't pull the human history is beatiful line on my, one of the most important aspects of being a historian is evaluating history and seeimg the good and the bad. How can human history be wholy beautiful when it contains such hideous tragedies? By your logic the two world wars, the red terror, the Mongol invasions, the Timurid's, Sparta's treatment of the Helots are all beautiful? I say this as a historian, human history has moments of stunning beauty, horrific tradgedy and acts of human cruelty that should make us feel ashamed. To say its all beautiful is to be a idealistic fool.

But anyway, I don't think either of us have mentioned Loghain in some time. Accepting we have different views on what is morally correct, I would put forward that we can both agree slavery should not be used as a matter of course and that Loghain's justification is inadequate. I propose this is because there are other avenuees of fund raising he could have used, such as selling lands or titles, or imposed taxes.

I'd also like to say, lets make sure this stays civil as I'm enjoying the conversation.

And where did I ever say human history was all good? I just said, it's beautiful, with all its greatness and tragedies. Yes, studying human history, alongside atrocities, is what makes it beautiful. I didn't say perfect. And I am certainly not an idealist for saying as such. It's just like saying the highs and lows of life are what makes it beautiful. Taking history as a whole, I can say it's beautiful, with all the great things and all the bad things (wars included).

No, we can't both agree. As I don't think Loghain's action is morally incorrect and Loghain's justification was more than adequate for me.
Selling lands? To who? Foreign powers?
Selling titles? Titles are passed from families, not sold in this context. And there is already taxation.
There was no real other way. Selling slaves is an easy and sure way to get money.

I have no intention of making it uncivil. I am enjoying this myself.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 14 janvier 2010 - 10:51 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

I think that means you can do whatever you want as long as you want it to become "universal law".

Kant means that do whatever action that you CAN wish to be a unviersal law. Not WANT. Because Kant believes that wishing actions contrary to duty to become unviersal law is impossible in both conception and will.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

I think that means you can do whatever you want as long as you want it to become "universal law".

Kant means that do whatever action that you CAN wish to be a unviersal law. Not WANT. Because Kant believes that wishing actions contrary to duty to become unviersal law is impossible in both conception and will.

But isn´t that the same? I mean, I CAN wish for everything as I´m a human with quite a bit of fantasy. However, i say WANT because much of what I CAN think of would be bad for me. So, I am even stricter and put more limitations than him.

[Xandurpein]

I think that regardless of what we may feel ourselves, it can be empiriacally proven that in Ferelden it was considered a bad thing to sell people into slavery. Whenever you use that claim at the Landsmeet you gain votes. I would think that this prves that selling elves into slavery seems to go against the moral code of the majority of Ferelden's nobles, so he is doing something immoral in the eyes of his peers, that much should be obvious.

[Urazz]

Ulicus wrote...

RtO Spoilers ----




All Eamon wanted was for Cailan to drop Anora and get a younger bride to produce an heir. There's no indication that Eamon knew, or approved, of the stuff going on with Cailan and Celene I (RtO implies Cailan may have been planning to wed the Orlesian Empress). Though, given he married an Orlesian himself, who knows what he'd have thought?

I dunno about that.  At the worst, Cailan was going to do what you said, but at the best it looked like he wasn't going to drop Anora (just that Arl Eamon wanted that to ensure a heir) and was just trying to get on better terms with Orlais which isn't necessarily a bad thing considering both nations have different rulers than at the time of the occupation and time has past since then.  Now though we know why it seemed like Eamon was against Anora continuing to rule though,  He thinks that she is unable to have kids (though for all we could know it could've been Cailan that was sterile) and thus no heir.  Not to mention his insistance on having someone with Maric's blood on the throne.

On Loghain though, I could understand his opinion about Ostagar, the beacon was lit later than planned, but he had no idea of how the battle was going at his position really.  If he just did that, then it would be forgiveable and just be a command decision.

But from what I've seen in the game it looked like Loghain was obviously planning this from shortly before the game started.  Probably when Cailan insisted on having Orlais wanted to have Orlais and it's Grey Wardens there to back them up.  The deal with Uldred was a sign of that (though that could've been set up at Ostagar before the defeat there), the poisoning of Eamon (there is time to suggest that Jowan could've got captured and set up by then), and his alliance with Howe.

The poisoning of Eamon though is kinda iffy though on timing.  I'm assuming it's been at least 2 weeks before the origin stories and when the PC arrives at Ostagar.  Also, we don't know how much time had passed from the battle at Ostagar and when Alistar and the PC set off to Lothering with Morrigan.  I'm thinking it took at least a week of healing at least depending on how badly Alistar and the PC were wounded at the tower of Ishal.  So that leaves plenty of time for Jowan to get captured by Loghain and sent to Eamon and poison him.  I'm thinking Jowan didn't really wait long to get established teaching Conner and to throw off suspicion since he got found out fairly quickly on poisoning Eamon.

Now while Loghain is not guilty of killing off the Couslands, the fact that he allowed Howe to remain as Teryn of Highever when he knew the truth and even gave him the title of Arl of Denerim as well showed something about his character and what he cared about justice.  He could've easily had Howe executed because he was in a delicate position at that time.  One could theorize though that Loghain wanted Bryce Cousland and his family out of the way and wanted an ally in that position so he would lose one of his biggest opponents.  One of the codex entries says that Bryce Cousland was well loved/respected by the people and some thought that he should've been king over Cailan if I recall.  This is not entirely out of question for Loghain since he did have several arls, banns, or their relatives imprisoned to keep them on his side.

But other than imprisoning nobility and torturing them, the only other crime Loghain is guilty of is of selling elven slaves.  Not much to say on that though.

Finally, there is Loghain's paranoia that the Orlesians would invade again if they were allowed into the country.  Sure there is the possibility that they might've tried but there is no proof that they would've and even if they did, it's not like Fereldan doesn't have an army to fight them off now.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And where did I ever say human history was all good? I just said, it's beautiful, with all its greatness and tragedies. Yes, studying human history, alongside atrocities, is what makes it beautiful. I didn't say perfect. And I am certainly not an idealist for saying as such. It's just like saying the highs and lows of life are what makes it beautiful. Taking history as a whole, I can say it's beautiful, with all the great things and all the bad things (wars included).

Leliana talks about the scars Marjolaine left.

PC: They make the picture more beautiful.

A very nice dialogue I mostly forgot:crying::crying: that sums this up quite good.

[Tirigon]

Xandurpein wrote...

I think that regardless of what we may feel ourselves, it can be empiriacally proven that in Ferelden it was considered a bad thing to sell people into slavery. Whenever you use that claim at the Landsmeet you gain votes. I would think that this prves that selling elves into slavery seems to go against the moral code of the majority of Ferelden's nobles, so he is doing something immoral in the eyes of his peers, that much should be obvious.

True, but it does not matter much. Though I´m one of the Loghain-haters I agree with his fans that his fellow nobles are not really better. Just less succesful.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

I think that means you can do whatever you want as long as you want it to become "universal law".

Kant means that do whatever action that you CAN wish to be a unviersal law. Not WANT. Because Kant believes that wishing actions contrary to duty to become unviersal law is impossible in both conception and will.

But isn´t that the same? I mean, I CAN wish for everything as I´m a human with quite a bit of fantasy. However, i say WANT because much of what I CAN think of would be bad for me. So, I am even stricter and put more limitations than him.

That's what his critics, including myself say yes. That we can wish for anything. But Kant is saying that we can't. So he is basically saying that you can't not agree with him and make it a universal law. A bit of arrogance there lol.
But I was saying what Kant was saying or claiming.

[Thomas9321]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Thomas9321 wrote...
In addition, don't pull the human history is beatiful line on my, one of the most important aspects of being a historian is evaluating history and seeimg the good and the bad. How can human history be wholy beautiful when it contains such hideous tragedies? By your logic the two world wars, the red terror, the Mongol invasions, the Timurid's, Sparta's treatment of the Helots are all beautiful? I say this as a historian, human history has moments of stunning beauty, horrific tradgedy and acts of human cruelty that should make us feel ashamed. To say its all beautiful is to be a idealistic fool.

But anyway, I don't think either of us have mentioned Loghain in some time. Accepting we have different views on what is morally correct, I would put forward that we can both agree slavery should not be used as a matter of course and that Loghain's justification is inadequate. I propose this is because there are other avenuees of fund raising he could have used, such as selling lands or titles, or imposed taxes.

I'd also like to say, lets make sure this stays civil as I'm enjoying the conversation.

And where did I ever say human history was all good? I just said, it's beautiful, with all its greatness and tragedies. Yes, studying human history, alongside atrocities, is what makes it beautiful. I didn't say perfect. And I am certainly not an idealist for saying as such. It's just like saying the highs and lows of life are what makes it beautiful. Taking history as a whole, I can say it's beautiful, with all the great things and all the bad things (wars included).

No, we can't both agree. As I don't think Loghain's action is morally incorrect and Loghain's justification was more than adequate for me.
Selling lands? To who? Foreign powers?
Selling titles? Titles are passed from families, not sold in this context. And there is already taxation.
There was no real other way. Selling slaves is an easy and sure way to get money.

I have no intention of making it uncivil. I am enjoying this myself.

Excellent.

Increase taxation? He is the regent. He could create new titles, confiscate lands from his enemies and give them to his friends, it was a common occurance in the Middle Ages. Hell, he could have said to Howe "Yes, you may become Arl of Denerim, but for 10,000 soverreigns!". I also saw very little evidence of the crown being poor, no one in game mentioned it. I find his justification highly inadequate - what did it achieve? Very little at the end of the day as it just furthered the destructive civil war. Surely it would have been better to conscript the elves into his army? I don't think his slavery was justified here. It produced no productive results, which is what you consider to make slavery acceptable, and was immoral, which I consider to make it unacceptable.

[Ulicus]

Thomas9321 wrote...
I also saw very little evidence of the crown being poor, no one in game mentioned it.

Ser Cautherian, assuming you haven't already killed her, says just before the Landsmeet that Loghain has emptied the treasury fighting the civil war.

[Xandurpein]

There is a lot of different opinions here, but I think that there is a tendency from Loghain-haters to lump everyone who defends their choice to let Loghain live as a Loghain-fan. I justwant to point out that I think what Loghain does is deplorable, but I sometimes let him live anyway, for various reasons. Just because I can see him as an asset if he is allowed to be Grey Warden, doesn't mean I have to defend his actions. The Grey Wardens are few and a Blight is coming, that will annihilate all living beings in the land, except those women who are turned into brood mothers.



I am NOT begrudging those who want to roleplay their characters so they think Loghain must die no matter what their game experience, but I don't have to argue that Loghain didn't do anything wrong just because I can see situatuions when I can roleplay a good/noble character who ultimately decides to let Loghain live.

[Thomas9321]

Ulicus wrote...

Thomas9321 wrote...
I also saw very little evidence of the crown being poor, no one in game mentioned it.

Ser Cautherian, assuming you haven't already killed her, says just before the Landsmeet that Loghain has emptied the treasury fighting the civil war.

Oh dear, well that will teach me to kill Cauthrien all the time. Ok, that said I still maintain there are better ways to raise funds than slavery.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Thomas9321 wrote...
Excellent.

Increase taxation? He is the regent. He could create new titles, confiscate lands from his enemies and give them to his friends, it was a common occurance in the Middle Ages. Hell, he could have said to Howe "Yes, you may become Arl of Denerim, but for 10,000 soverreigns!". I also saw very little evidence of the crown being poor, no one in game mentioned it. I find his justification highly inadequate - what did it achieve? Very little at the end of the day as it just furthered the destructive civil war. Surely it would have been better to conscript the elves into his army? I don't think his slavery was justified here. It produced no productive results, which is what you consider to make slavery acceptable, and was immoral, which I consider to make it unacceptable.

There is a problem with increasing taxation. Assuming that he didn't do tha already (which I doubt), if most of the population is drafted into the army, there is few people left to pay those taxes. Furthermnore, add the fact that alot of Banns and the Arl of Redcliff were rebelling, which will severly reduce taxe income. It's a feudal society, so it's the Banns that recieve taxes from the people. Even the Arl of Redcliff wasn't rich enough to properly equip his army, as his sergeant in our camp says. So it's not that easy.
Second, selling titles was rarely used to finance a war in our real life. Plus, we don't know if it's acceptable to do so. From what we have seen, lands are heavily linked to families. You should re-read about the unification of Ferelden into a Kingdom. It took compromise from the King vis a vis the banns, Arls and especially Teryns. So I doubt the king or regent could aritifically create titles in Ferelden.

All codexes mention Ferelden being poor compared to the other kingdoms, especially Orlais. There is no signs of great riches. No real source of richness either.

The elves were weak and not numerous, they would add very little to the army if drafted. Selling them offers better benefits. And it did produce results. That's until we put it out of business. But it was generating money. And it was only set in place for a short period of time, I will remind you. So it wasn't counter-productive. And no body knew of it. That's until the Warden shows up. 

So all things considered, Ferelden lacked any real alternative to generate money that is urgently needed. Selling elves into slavery is, imo, an accetpable strategy, both morally and pragmatically.

EDIT: yes Loghain emptied the treasury to fight the civil war, which is why he needs cash urgently, which is through selling elves. That was the only way to generate money fast. But that's certainly not a proof that slavery wasn't working.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 14 janvier 2010 - 11:16 .

[Ulicus]

Thomas9321 wrote...

Oh dear, well that will teach me to kill Cauthrien all the time. Ok, that said I still maintain there are better ways to raise funds than slavery.

Tell me about it. I've only ever let her live on one playthrough. My characters refuse to be cowed by a heavily armoured, Zweihänder wielding warrior-woman backed up by a dozen archers and two mages.

T'would be unseemly.

[Xandurpein]

Ulicus wrote...

Thomas9321 wrote...
I also saw very little evidence of the crown being poor, no one in game mentioned it.

Ser Cautherian, assuming you haven't already killed her, says just before the Landsmeet that Loghain has emptied the treasury fighting the civil war.

There are many posts on this forum from budding armchair generals with all sorts of fanciful ideas how they are going to make themselves King of Ferelden by having werevolves and apostates storm Denerim, or free the elves by training elven servatns to assassinate their masters, to the interesting alternatives for funding the war.

They all have in common that they seem very fanciful and unrealistic to me. Increase taxes during a civil war. Brilliant idea! How big a portion of the army do you divert to guarding the tax collectors? How many will defect from your cause because of the unpopular taxes? How do you even collect taxes when half the country is overrun by the Blight.

Selling titles to Nobles? He needs to hand out titles for free to keep his alliance together, and even if he took money from Howe so he could raise 1000 soldiers, what had he won if his ally Howe lost 1000 soldiers he could no longer afford. Zero sum game for his alliance. Trade with Orzammar? Civil war is bad for trade. Civil war is really bad for the economy, full stop, in fact. It empties the states coffers.

[Sarethus]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Tirigon: Pardon me, but I never called anyone a idiot. If anyone is flaming in this thread it is YOU.

I know PERFECTLY well what war is, unlike you. I know of the blood spilled, the massacres that have occurred, the genocides, the slavery, the families destroyed and the suffering it causes overall. I have studied battles in great detail where generals would commit such attrocities that it would make Howe look like a nice little monkey. I have read of burned villages, raped women and children killed just so the troops would have their morale bolstered.

There is no such thing as HONOR in war, or innocence, or the so called GOOD vs EVIL ****. Both sides are evil, and there is no way you can tell me you are not evil and unethical by killing a man like, regardless of what he did.

I told soldiers the full story behind the choice in the game, they still said they would makes Loghain a Warden, for a person needs to FULLY realize the wrongs of his life, not just die gutted like a pig.

He killed thousands? What bloody proof do you have? He killed soldiers in a civil that was started by the Bannorn, not by him. He only made the sound strategic choice to RETREAT. As for the elves, I don't care, innocents die in war, or do you think that if he had lost the Civil War before the Landsmeet the country would have been so much better? I think ( and history proves me right ) that it would have continued between different nobles, even without Loghain.

If his men were not pulled, they would not necessarily have lost the
battle, but they would have suffered severe losses within the army.
 Well, imo

Really? Considering that Elric ( the guy you meet in RTO ) says the battle could not have been won, with or without Loghain.

Haven't read to the end yet and not played RTO but your comment about Loghain needing to realise the wrongs of his life is problematic because he doesn't. If you spare Loghain he does not become repenting and remorseful at the very least according to posters in this thread I made. 

Redemption is all well and good but before that can occur a man has to admit his mistakes, Loghain doesn't.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarethus wrote...
Redemption is all well and good but before that can occur a man has to admit his mistakes, Loghain doesn't.

Loghain: "I have done so much wrong. Please, allow me to do one thing right". Before killing the archdemon.

So as Lex Luthor would say....WRONG!

[SuperMaoriFulla]

You don't win wars with flowers or eloquent platitudes... at least not in Ferelden, maybe in Orlais

[Thomas9321]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Thomas9321 wrote...
Excellent.

Increase taxation? He is the regent. He could create new titles, confiscate lands from his enemies and give them to his friends, it was a common occurance in the Middle Ages. Hell, he could have said to Howe "Yes, you may become Arl of Denerim, but for 10,000 soverreigns!". I also saw very little evidence of the crown being poor, no one in game mentioned it. I find his justification highly inadequate - what did it achieve? Very little at the end of the day as it just furthered the destructive civil war. Surely it would have been better to conscript the elves into his army? I don't think his slavery was justified here. It produced no productive results, which is what you consider to make slavery acceptable, and was immoral, which I consider to make it unacceptable.

There is a problem with increasing taxation. Assuming that he didn't do tha already (which I doubt), if most of the population is drafted into the army, there is few people left to pay those taxes. Furthermnore, add the fact that alot of Banns and the Arl of Redcliff were rebelling, which will severly reduce taxe income. It's a feudal society, so it's the Banns that recieve taxes from the people. Even the Arl of Redcliff wasn't rich enough to properly equip his army, as his sergeant in our camp says. So it's not that easy.
Second, selling titles was rarely used to finance a war in our real life. Plus, we don't know if it's acceptable to do so. From what we have seen, lands are heavily linked to families. You should re-read about the unification of Ferelden into a Kingdom. It took compromise from the King vis a vis the banns, Arls and especially Teryns. So I doubt the king or regent could aritifically create titles in Ferelden.

All codexes mention Ferelden being poor compared to the other kingdoms, especially Orlais. There is no signs of great riches. No real source of richness either.

The elves were weak and not numerous, they would add very little to the army if drafted. Selling them offers better benefits. And it did produce results. That's until we put it out of business. But it was generating money. And it was only set in place for a short period of time, I will remind you. So it wasn't counter-productive. And no body knew of it. That's until the Warden shows up. 

So all things considered, Ferelden lacked any real alternative to generate money that is urgently needed. Selling elves into slavery is, imo, an accetpable strategy, both morally and pragmatically.

EDIT: yes Loghain emptied the treasury to fight the civil war, which is why he needs cash urgently, which is through selling elves. That was the only way to generate money fast. But that's certainly not a proof that slavery wasn't working.

Well, Richard the Lionheart sold land to finance the third Crusade, so there is evidence of land being sold to finance a war. I think Loghain was in a very tight spot with the slavery thing, if he didn't do something he would lose the civil war, but by selling elves he earned condemnation. Whilst you have successfully argued that Loghain's options were limited, I still see it a morally unacceptable. Not only the slavery, but the fact it was used to finance an unjust regime (It was not supported by either the Queen or nobles). Thats always been my main line of argument, slavery is a crime too great to be justified. Could he not have pushed for one decisive battle with the Bannorn? Could he not have avoided the civil war by dealing with the nobles through Anora whilst ruling behind the scenes?

Pragmatically, yes selling the elves is justifiable. But it is not morally. As is evidenced by the Landsmeet. Remember, these elves are people, imagine yourself being sold into slavery, truly imagine it. Its not morally justifiable. But then again Loghain never was terribly morale.

This is a moot point here, I don't think this argument will ever have a satisfying conslusiom as no one will ever be convinced of the others point of view. For my part, I'm going to leave the issue alone. I'll give you that you have made some damn good points, but I still think that the selling of elves is morally wrong.

[Ulicus]

I always expected Loghain to channel Kain:



"Conscience! You DARE speak to me of *conscience*? Only when you have felt the full gravity of choice can you dare question MY judgement!"



Might have had something to do with Templeman's involvement with the character....

[KnightofPhoenix]

Thomas9321 wrote...
Well, Richard the Lionheart sold land to finance the third Crusade, so there is evidence of land being sold to finance a war. I think Loghain was in a very tight spot with the slavery thing, if he didn't do something he would lose the civil war, but by selling elves he earned condemnation. Whilst you have successfully argued that Loghain's options were limited, I still see it a morally unacceptable. Not only the slavery, but the fact it was used to finance an unjust regime (It was not supported by either the Queen or nobles). Thats always been my main line of argument, slavery is a crime too great to be justified. Could he not have pushed for one decisive battle with the Bannorn? Could he not have avoided the civil war by dealing with the nobles through Anora whilst ruling behind the scenes?

Pragmatically, yes selling the elves is justifiable. But it is not morally. As is evidenced by the Landsmeet. Remember, these elves are people, imagine yourself being sold into slavery, truly imagine it. Its not morally justifiable. But then again Loghain never was terribly morale.

This is a moot point here, I don't think this argument will ever have a satisfying conslusiom as no one will ever be convinced of the others point of view. For my part, I'm going to leave the issue alone. I'll give you that you have made some damn good points, but I still think that the selling of elves is morally wrong.

Richard financed a campaign, but Britian was not under invasion and nor was it in civil war. Two different situations altogether.
Anora is against any regime that compromises her power. So that's not really important.

And the "try to imagine yourself being an elf" is not a real argument, but rather an attempt to generate an emotional response. If I was an elf, I would obviously be biased and limited in my world view and I would obviously not accept anyone using me as a slave. But a King / regent who has to take care of an entire nation will have a different and more complete perspective, as well as more urgent needs, than a person with little responsability. It's all relative.

Of course, arguing about morality is always moot. No one can really sway the other. But it's enjoyable that the discussion has proceeded in a civil way and it has been an intellectual delight and challenge to have participated in it.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 14 janvier 2010 - 11:37 .

[Carodej]

I recall my philosphy professor thought Kant was the ultimate when it came to philosophers. OTOH, I thought Kant made far too many unreasonable assumptions. Actually, pretty much every philosopher we studied who came after Descartes and his famous "Cogito ergo sum," seemed to build what I thought of as elaborate philosophical sand castles which seemed to me to indicate more how "enlightned" thinkers of their time were thinking than anything else.



But anyway, getting back to the topic, plain and simple, many of the things Loghain did were very wrong by my moral standards.



And I'm not saying the PC or Grey Wardens in general have higher moral standards, or always do right.



If anyone thinks slavery is justifiable because at times it has been used to produce things that benefited some people, I won't argue with them because their morals are obviously too different from mine. But slavery in this situation seems an "ends justifies the means" sort of thing. This sort of attitude allows for justification of any sort atrocity, but that doesn't make it right, good, etc. (Oh, and @KnightofPhoenix, based on what appears to be your belief that slavery is OK because it can produce something beneficial to society, would you consider rape "good" if it was used as a punishment and therefore made women more productive members of society? I wouldn't, but what your wrote earlier seems to indicate you would - especially if someone had a historical example of this.)



I was trying to come up with a decent anology for poisoning Eamon, about the closest I can come up with in the US political system would be to do something like poison both the governor of one of the largest states as well as the Speaker of the House. (This seems semi-close to the equivalent political power to Eamon.) Oh, and remember this poisoning is done because these people both support the President and are telling him he should divorce his wife. And to make this a little closer analogy, let's also make the poisoner a criminal that your troops broke out of jail - killing and/or imprisoning the police that had been holding this criminal.



@Costin_Razvan, despite what you said earlier about a military court laughing off this sort of thing, I personally doubt a US military court would deal kindly with a general that took that sort of action - especially if the general did it shortly before he tried a military coup to take over the government. In fact I think very few people would consider this sort of thing acceptable behavior.



There's an old expression that says you can judge a person by the company he keeps. While I know politics makes for strange bedfellows, Uldred and Howe being some of Loghain's new best buddies should tell you something of what the man is like (even if he was different in his younger days). Uldred practically destroyed the Circle (kind of like a miniature civil war) with his poor judgment and misguided beliefs and the like. Howe betrayed the Couslands, depending on your origin he may also locked up the arl of Denerim's rightful heir, his picked soldiers were either the criminals that needed to be arrested - or worse than them, recruited an assassin to kill innocent but inconvenient people, etc.



The bottom line is that Loghain is a fanatic, one whose delusions cloud whatever good judgment he once had. Much like many modern day terrorists, he was in a situation that he found intolerable and one that he had no way of changing - at least he had no way to change it in a way most people would find morally acceptable. So he did what he had to do to win, and to hell with the cost or what was right or wrong. To him, staving off Orlais (despite them not actually being a current threat) - and protecting his daughter - seem to have been more important than anything else.



I have not read the books yet, but for someone who apparently was apparently so bright in them, the Loghain in the game seems incredibly short sighted. (And it seems to me it's all because of his fanatical hatred of Orlais.) In a monarchy like Ferelden, the king *needs* heir(s). Setting aside Anora might have been the best thing for the kingdom. Yes, we all know she did the real ruling, but if she dies and there is no heir of royal blood, then the most likely thing to occur would be civil war. Such a civil war would leave Ferelden quite vulnerable to Oralais or any other nearby kingdom.



In Loghain's loathing of Orlais, he preferred to risk civil war as well as total destruction from the darkspawn. As, depending on your choices, Daveth may mention to Ser Jory "Maybe you'll die. Maybe we'll all die. If nobody stops the darkspawn, we'll die for sure." While Orlais may very well be a large threat, the darkspawn are a much more serious threat. And a Ferelden civil war, no matter who the victor, would still be a loss for Ferelden.



And so this leads to why I kill Loghain. It's not just because he did wrong, I can understand that even though I neither condone nor forgive it. But recruiting Loghain into the Grey Wardens won't magically remove his obsession with Orlais. As Loghain has shown himself to be a true fanatic, he has proved himself untrusthworthy. With his ego, ambition, contacts, etc. he would almost certainly be a source of trouble as long as he lived. He is not even useful as a general as could set you up for a fall like he did with Cailan. Loghain is just too powerful and too blinded by his delusions to risk doing anything else with - at least in my opinion.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Carodej wrote...
Oh, and @KnightofPhoenix, based on what appears to be your belief that slavery is OK because it can produce something beneficial to society, would you consider rape "good" if it was used as a punishment and therefore made women more productive members of society? I wouldn't, but what your wrote earlier seems to indicate you would - especially if someone had a historical example of this

There are better, faster and more efficient forms of punishments than rape. Rape is never productive and has no purpose or aim except to satisfy the rapist. So no, rape is, under all circumstances, bad. Unfortunately, eliminating it completely from war has proven to be very difficult. 
But imo a rapist should suffer the death penalty immediately.  

[Woman Warden 118]

Xandurpein wrote...

I think that regardless of what we may feel ourselves, it can be empiriacally proven that in Ferelden it was considered a bad thing to sell people into slavery. Whenever you use that claim at the Landsmeet you gain votes. I would think that this prves that selling elves into slavery seems to go against the moral code of the majority of Ferelden's nobles, so he is doing something immoral in the eyes of his peers, that much should be obvious.

EXACTELY! this person is EXACTELY right!