150 réponses à ce sujet

[Master Warder Z_]

Officially, this part doesn't even apply to commoners.

Of course not.

They aren't granted noble privilege.

[TheChosenOne]

Chevaliers might be cool and all but they got nothing on the Grey Wardens 

[Former_Fiend]

 

 

Agreed.

 

And with that, I now have absolutely no qualms about leaving Stroud in the Fade to be spider food to save Hawke. 

 

Give me solid proof that it is not every one of them. 

 

Just because Rainier knows he did a terrible thing doesn't make him a good person to judge who are honorable and who is not.

 

 

As much as I dislike chevaliers, I don't question their "honor". Thing about "honor" is that it's a meaningless word, or rather a word with too many meanings to too many people.

[dragonflight288]

I'll support the chevaliers after they stop slaughtering unarmed men, women and children civilians as part of an initiation rite. 

[The Baconer]

Of course not.

They aren't granted noble privilege.

Right, so the concept of "Chevalier Honor" is stripped on any real significance.

[Willowhugger]

 

When I first heard about the chevaliers in DAO I invisioned an order that was more form than substance. A group of competent, capable warriors, to be sure, but no where near as good as they claimed to be or thought they were. That they would be a reflection of the empire; an aging institution beginning to buckle under it's own decadence.

 

Isn't that more or less the case?

The chevaliers are in decline because Orlais is more about fancy parties and intrigue than knighthood?

It's what Gaspard is trying to restore.

[Master Warder Z_]

Right, so the concept of "Chevalier Honor" is stripped on any real significance.

I'd disagree as there is a difference between those of noble birth and privilege and common men.

It's about the same as officer's being preferred over soldiers in medieval and even colonial prisoner exchange.

It's practicality and honorable.

[The Baconer]

I'd disagree as there is a difference between those of noble birth and privilege and common men.

It's about the same as officer's being preferred over soldiers in medieval and even colonial prisoner exchange.

It's practicality and honorable.

 

It wouldn't be honorable in that case, but rather an array of courtesies extended only to those of privileged status. I mean, they can call it "Chevalier Honor" if they want, but it only really serves to signify that it's just the ersatz, Orlesian version of actual honor.

[ladyofpayne]

I'll support the chevaliers after they stop slaughtering unarmed men, women and children civilians as part of an initiation rite. 

Briala can fix that.

[TEWR]

 

 

Agreed.

 

And with that, I now have absolutely no qualms about leaving Stroud in the Fade to be spider food to save Hawke. 

 

Give me solid proof that it is not every one of them. 

 

Just because Rainier knows he did a terrible thing doesn't make him a good person to judge who are honorable and who is not.

 

 

It's informal, therefore unofficial. That it has to be done in secret at all in the dead of night means that it's not always going to be done. The Chevaliers in general have bad members and good members.

 

It's really going to depend on who is your mentor, I would think. I can't say a small section of a book is enough to say for certain how much it's done.

 

That it happens at all is reprehensible, I do not deny. I just doubt that it will happen all the time. I will however grant that it happens most of the time, because of the nature of Orlais (it is harsher towards Elves then Ferelden, per the Orlesian woman in the Denerim market) .

 

All you and I have proof for is that it happens. No more and no less.

 

And perhaps, but the same could be said of anyone. First impressions can be deceiving. I'd daresay no one can be a good judge of who is honorable and who is not. Not unless they're truly bad at concealing who they are.

 

Like Bhelen. Even a fool could piece together how he has no honor, right from the get-go.

[ladyofpayne]

Officially, this part doesn't even apply to commoners.

Their society are class.

[Han Shot First]

It's informal, therefore unofficial. That it has to be done in secret at all in the dead of night means that it's not always going to be done. The Chevaliers in general have bad members and good members.

 

 

Even if all Chevaliers go through with this practice, it is still possible for some of them to be morally good. A good Chevalier for example might single out a criminal in the alienage or someone plotting rebellion against Orlais, or perhaps a Dalish from a clan that has committed banditry or attacked humans, whereas someone with a more evil alignment would be more inclined to have a 'any knife ear will do' outlook.

[Willowhugger]

I don't think you can really get around "go kill a random elf" that way.

However, I don't think all chevaliers would be trained there.

Most would probably be squired elsewhere.

[Milan92]

And with that, I now have absolutely no qualms about leaving Stroud in the Fade to be spider food to save Hawke.

Its hard, isnt it. To actually try and look at the world grey.

[dragonflight288]

I don't think you can really get around "go kill a random elf" that way.

However, I don't think all chevaliers would be trained there.

Most would probably be squired elsewhere.

 

If they are of noble birth.

 

It's ironic, even if Harrowmont is on the throne, even Casteless can join the Legion of the Dead and become honored warriors on the front lines but regular people in Orlais can't join the army. 

 

It's not often I see a moment where Casteless  have more rights than others, even if it is only in this one thing. 

[The Baconer]

Their society are class.

 

I am not sure what you're saying here.

 

Even if all Chevaliers go through with this practice, it is still possible for some of them to be morally good. A good Chevalier for example might single out a criminal in the alienage or someone plotting rebellion against Orlais, or perhaps a Dalish from a clan that has committed banditry or attacked humans, whereas someone with a more evil alignment would be more inclined to have a 'any knife ear will do' outlook.

 

It's possible in the "What's the probability that the person I just killed was a criminal... roll d20" kind of way. I'm sure that's how many will rationalize it in their heads, anyway.

 

 

It's ironic, even if Harrowmont is on the throne, even Casteless can join the Legion of the Dead and become honored warriors on the front lines but regular people in Orlais can't join the army.

 

I'm pretty sure Orlais doesn't have a professional military body, aside from the Chevaliers, so they can certainly "join" the army... whether or not they really intend to do so.

[dragonflight288]

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure Orlais doesn't have a professional military body, aside from the Chevaliers, so they can certainly "join" the army... whether or not they really intend to do so.

 

Oh I'm sure there are press-gangs ready to bring any man who can wield a sword into the armed forces. 

 

I was talking about joining a military order that is honored for their sacrifice and diligence. 

[Gaesesagai]

It's possible in the "What's the probability that the person I just killed was a criminal... roll d20" kind of way.

 

Lol so true...

[The Baconer]

Oh I'm sure there are press-gangs ready to bring any man who can wield a sword into the armed forces. 

 

I was talking about joining a military order that is honored for their sacrifice and diligence. 

 

Yeah, the closest thing would probably be the Grey Wardens... and even that may be off the table now.

[Former_Fiend]

I still find all this arguing about what is and isn't "honorable" to be pointless. Honor codes vary wildly from culture to culture, organization to organization. Honor doesn't have a set, universal value or definition. Each honor code is different. What is honorable under one may be completely dishonorable under another. 

 

An example; 

 

In A Song of Ice And Fire/Game of Thrones, Ned Stark and Khal Drogo are both considered honorable men by the definitions of their respective societies. Those definitions are completely divorced from one another.

 

Ned's honor code demands that he treat fairly and honestly with allies and enemies alike, and that he handle his own dirty work and not employ others to do what he isn't willing to do himself.

 

Drogo's honor code demands that he face his enemies head on and destroy them utterly, that he answers any challenge to his power, that he leads from the front, and as a result, he can rape, pillage, and take whatever spoils of war he desires.

 

Neither man really holds up as a perfectly moral person by modern moral standards - Ned's far closer, of course, but even he's willing to sentence people to death with very little in the way of evidence or what we would consider a fair trial, and his sense of honor leads him to condemn people who violate that code without question, even when they had perfectly valid and moral reasons for doing so.

 

None of which changes the fact that by the standards of their respective societies, both men are the epitome of honor.

 

Likewise, just because the chevalier code of conduct doesn't extend the same privileges to commoners as it does to nobles doesn't invalidate it as an honor code. A chevalier who tortures a foot soldier and rapes a commoner but in every other respect, conducts themselves within the bounds of the chevalier code, is honorable.

 

Honorable doesn't mean good.

[ladyofpayne]

If they are of noble birth.

 

It's ironic, even if Harrowmont is on the throne, even Casteless can join the Legion of the Dead and become honored warriors on the front lines but regular people in Orlais can't join the army. 

 

It's not often I see a moment where Casteless  have more rights than others, even if it is only in this one thing. 

orlesian people can join to army.

[The Baconer]

I still find all this arguing about what is and isn't "honorable" to be pointless. Honor codes vary wildly from culture to culture, organization to organization. Honor doesn't have a set, universal value or definition. Each honor code is different. What is honorable under one may be completely dishonorable under another. 

 

[...]

 

Likewise, just because the chevalier code of conduct doesn't extend the same privileges to commoners as it does to nobles doesn't invalidate it as an honor code. A chevalier who tortures a foot soldier and rapes a commoner but in every other respect, conducts themselves within the bounds of the chevalier code, is honorable.

 

Honorable doesn't mean good.

 

You're correct, but at the same time, there's little consistency in regards to what counts as "honorable" or "dishonorable" for a Chevalier, even if we're working from the perspective of a, blech, pampered Orlesian. Our most notable example, Gaspard, rides the full spectrum. He kills one of his own (very useful) allies for breaking an oath made to his enemy, and then later he would have no problem taking victory in a duel that was hardcore rigged. Of course, according to Gaspard his honor could not be questioned in the latter case, because he had no idea that any cheating had been taking place! Later, he plans to zerg rush the peace negotiations with foreign mercenaries, which technically could go either way I suppose. I'm sure the go-to excuse would be "You didn't ask me to swear on my Chevalier honor, so it doesn't count."

 

Then you have the Chevalier who ordered Thom Rainier to have another noble assassinated. When that went FUBAR said Chevalier apparently killed himself, and Gaspard disavowed any involvement with the hit. They seem to have a habit of preaching one thing, then doing another thing; not so much living by "death before dishonor" as "don't get caught".

[dragonflight288]

orlesian people can join to army.

 

But not the Chevalier's. In most feudal societies, every man who can bear a blade was in the army, trained or not, because their king demanded it. But those who joined say, the Knight-Templars, the Musketeers, the Aztec Jaguar Warriors, or the Medieval Knight were honored and celebrated for their skill and strength of arms. The average peasant couldn't join these illustrious band of brothers. They were pretty picky about who they let in. 

 

In Orzammar the reverse is true, ironically. The casteless can't join the army, but they can join the Legion of the Dead which is an honored military order, much like the Chevalier's, only the life expectancy is much shorter and there are fewer perks. 

[Former_Fiend]

You're correct, but at the same time, there's little consistency in regards to what counts as "honorable" or "dishonorable" for a Chevalier, even if we're working from the perspective of a, blech, pampered Orlesian. Our most notable example, Gaspard, rides the full spectrum. He kills one of his own (very useful) allies for breaking an oath made to his enemy, and then later he would have no problem taking victory in a duel that was hardcore rigged. Of course, according to Gaspard his honor could not be questioned in the latter case, because he had no idea that any cheating had been taking place! Later, he plans to zerg rush the peace negotiations with foreign mercenaries, which technically could go either way I suppose. I'm sure the go-to excuse would be "You didn't ask me to swear on my Chevalier honor, so it doesn't count."

 

Then you have the Chevalier who ordered Thom Rainier to have another noble assassinated. When that went FUBAR said Chevalier apparently killed himself, and Gaspard disavowed any involvement with the hit. They seem to have a habit of preaching one thing, then doing another thing; not so much living by "death before dishonor" as "don't get caught".

 

This is an issue that arises with honor being a definite code instead of a vague sense of fair play. It means there are loopholes to take advantage of. To an extent, I can certainly sympathize with Gaspard for not wanting to throw away a victory when he - however technically - didn't do anything wrong by the tenets of the code by which he abides.

 

Of course, that raises questions regarding morality. For or the sake of argument, let's accept/pretend for a moment that Gaspard was the epitome of evil and that his rule over Orlais would be utterly despotic, and that Celene was beyond any doubt the right person to put on the throne.

 

Now let's also pretend that the duel(evil Gaspard is still bound by the code in this scenario) was hardcore rigged in Celene/Michel's favor.

 

Forgetting about honor, would declining the victory because the sense of fair play was violated be the moral thing to do?

 

Getting back to the reality of the situation for a moment where it is no where near as clear whether Celene or Gaspard actually is the right choice, if either of them are, what can't be questioned is that they both believe - absolutely - that their cause is just and that they must succeed over the other for the good of the nation. 

 

So from Gaspard's perspective, it's not unreasonable that he would accept even a tainted victory for what he believes to be the greater good, so long as he can justify to himself that his honor remains unstained. 

 

As for the chevalier who paid off Rainier, that's a murkier situation as - as far as I know - we don't have any clear evidence whether or not Gaspard actually had any hand in that or the chevalier was acting of their own initiative.

 

In any event, I don't mean to insinuate that each and every chevalier is honorable by the measure of their code. Not by a long shot. Nor do I mean to insinuate that the code is infallible or beyond reproach. In many respects, it's morally repugnant, and is clearly designed to give favoritism to the upper class and to allow for some shady business. 

 

My point is simply that the code itself cannot be called dishonorable as the code is what defines honor as applied to and claimed by the chevaliers. 

 

Another problem with honor codes is that even those that are clearly defined leave room for interpretation and often contain - due to the inherent imperfection of humanity - contradiction. Bushido, for instance, causes problems as each samurai has to interpret for themselves which of it's tenets is paramount to them, and that can lead to contradicting interpretations for how a situation should be honorably handled. 

[The Baconer]

This is an issue that arises with honor being a definite code instead of a vague sense of fair play. It means there are loopholes to take advantage of. To an extent, I can certainly sympathize with Gaspard for not wanting to throw away a victory when he - however technically - didn't do anything wrong by the tenets of the code by which he abides.

 

Of course, that raises questions regarding morality. For or the sake of argument, let's accept/pretend for a moment that Gaspard was the epitome of evil and that his rule over Orlais would be utterly despotic, and that Celene was beyond any doubt the right person to put on the throne.

 

Now let's also pretend that the duel(evil Gaspard is still bound by the code in this scenario) was hardcore rigged in Celene/Michel's favor.

 

Forgetting about honor, would declining the victory because the sense of fair play was violated be the moral thing to do?

 

In the book Michel concedes to Gaspard because he was honor-bound to do, knowing that it would prolong a conflict that would kill thousands of people, most of whom honestly have no stake in either claimant's victory. In many respects, this could be considered a conventionally immoral decision, and yet "honorable" according to the standards of the code he lives by.

 

 

My point is simply that the code itself cannot be called dishonorable as the code is what defines honor as applied to and claimed by the chevaliers.

 

Well, it could be, at least by one whose own understanding of "honor" stands in opposition to the Chevaliers'. And so I will, pointless as it may be.