460 réponses à ce sujet

[Cecilia]

Kingsguard don't go around murdering and raping except when a bad king is in charge ordering them to do it.

 

I mean I doubt all of the Chevaliers are like "yaylet'sgomurderelvesyespls" - in a sense they're following orders as much as the KG are (none of which makes anything either group does right ofc)

 

Also I think it's a bit wrong to debate the Chevaliers purely in terms of "are they moral?" because they're more of a military force with a code of honor than a Templar/Seeker-equivalent. I'm never going to argue they're moral positive people, but I think there's a solid philosophical foundation there at the heart of it (honor does not preclude tactics, and glory is not won through foolishness) that can definitely be salvaged. 

[dragonflight288]

Before we start talking about chevalier's morality in the setting of dragon age, I think it's a good idea to stop applying modern day philosophies and moralities upon them. 

 

I mean, sure we can most certainly use it to establish what we, as outside gamers in the modern world, see them as.

 

But all philosophy determines the moral good of any philosophical theory. So as a mental exercise, I'm trying to determine if the chevalier's are moral or not by their own standards. And I'm attempting to do this by expanding my understanding of what the "moral good" the chevalier code itself calls for, and not necessarily what we determine the moral good is as outsider gamers. 

 

Which is why I asked those three questions earlier, and expanded those questions at the bottom of the last page. Let's work out the details of the code and what actions it calls on the chevaliers, and then compare that to what the chevaliers actually do, and that'll tell us if they are moral or not by their own standards. 

 

I already know that I do not consider them moral by my standards, but this is a fun mental exercise I'm trying to do. 

[Cecilia]

I'm trying to get into the philosophy of the Chevalier's code itself.

 

And all philosophy determines what is "the good" to uphold. For example, a hedonist would see "pleasure" or "bliss" as the good to uphold, and anything that takes it away as "not-good" even if it isn't actually "evil" in their eyes.

 

1. And so, to a person trying to follow the Chevalier's Code in modern Orlas, what is "the good" they are trying to achieve by following the code? Defending the weak? Serving the crown? Defend the country? What is the ideal chevalier doing when following the code?

 

2. And should a Chevalier be in a position where they have to choose between choosing to defend a village or save the reining monarch, who then, would the Chevalier be more obligated to defend according to their code?

 

3. And finally, what is the purpose of killing elves in an alienage as part of an initiation ritual in regards to the chevalier code itself?

 

I'm focusing less on the people and the military order and its members actions, and trying to focus on the code itself, and what the code dictates they actually should do compared to what they actually do. 

 

I don't honestly think we have that much insight into the code itself, but extrapolating from what we do know:

 

They're motto is "Honor does not preclude tactics, and glory is not won through foolishness" so I would argue there is no "good" in the strictest sense for the Chevaliers. Rather,

 

1. They are a military branch that is founded with the express purpose of defending the empire of Orlais. Given their defection with Gaspard, I'm going to go on a limb and assume this is the empire as a political entity itself and not the reigning monarch per se. This, taken with their motto, makes them more utilitarian than anything else - their purpose is to serve the empire of Orlais in whatever way they believe is most beneficial to the empire.

 

2. I think this would most likely be up to the individual Chevalier - Michel de Chevin obviously believed his word to a commoner superseded his allegiance to his Empress, but I believe there are Chevaliers who would argue the opposite. It would most likely be circumstantial as well - but ceteris paribus, I'd argue saving the reigning monarch would indeed trump saving a town simply because a town has a lesser impact on the empire than the death of the emperor/empress.

 

3. That's actually an unofficial never really sanctioned ritual the Chevaliers get up to themselves, which is why I think it's better viewed as a twisted hazing ritual than actual Chevalier code. You're obliged to do it because of the people around you, not because of any codified rule. In terms of practicality, if I'm going to be completely heartless - Chevaliers aren't supposed to be sentimental, they're supposed to be weapons of the empire or Orlais and as such willing to give their own lives for it. Killing unarmed elves in alienages may be a way to cement that requisite callousness. Like all hazing rituals, participating in a horrific act together builds strong bonds between the graduating class, which will make them more effective as a composite entity in battle/against enemies. The Chevaliers may also have been involved in the Exalted March upon the Dales, in which case it could be a remnant of that period in their history - when they were enemies of the elves and slaying elves was considered something glorious. I think there's also a lot of indication that the Chevaliers and many Orlesians simply don't view elves as people. 

 

Basically I don't think the Chevaliers were ever supposed to stand on any moral grounds - rather they are bound by Honor and Glory, which is quite simply (1) acting upon your word once you give it & (2) doing cool things that go down in history 

[Addai]

I mean I doubt all of the Chevaliers are like "yaylet'sgomurderelvesyespls" - in a sense they're following orders as much as the KG are (none of which makes anything either group does right ofc)

 

Also I think it's a bit wrong to debate the Chevaliers purely in terms of "are they moral?" because they're more of a military force with a code of honor than a Templar/Seeker-equivalent. I'm never going to argue they're moral positive people, but I think there's a solid philosophical foundation there at the heart of it (honor does not preclude tactics, and glory is not won through foolishness) that can definitely be salvaged. 

Only if the Orlesians give up the Game. I'm not sure what will induce them to do so. Maybe that would be the chevaliers, who are the enforcers of it, if there are some serious reformers. The other chevalier fans apparently turn their noses up at this idea, however.

[The Baconer]

What do we know a Chevalier's word or honor is actually good for (beyond the character of the individual), at the moment?

 

- It doesn't guarantee a fair fight

- We can't assume we'd be safe from a knife in the back

- Duplicity is fair game

 

What do we know for sure that it grants us, officially? They cannot torture you... at least, only of you're a blueblood. The problem I have with Chevalier honor is that it means nothing, it's just dirt. Less than dirt, actually, because to our knowledge it has absolutely no weight or worth in any capacity.

[Obadiah]

It means they keep their word, to the point of the Chevalier's own detriment.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

It means they keep their word, to the point of the Chevalier's own detriment.

Yet they broke their word to serve the crown by joining Gaspard in his rebellion against said crown. 

[Ashagar]

Their first loyalty is apparently to the empire itself not to the person warming the throne and they apparently felt that Celene had become unfit to rule the empire in which case the honorable thing would be to save the empire from a unfit ruler.

[dragonflight288]

I don't honestly think we have that much insight into the code itself, but extrapolating from what we do know:

 

They're motto is "Honor does not preclude tactics, and glory is not won through foolishness" so I would argue there is no "good" in the strictest sense for the Chevaliers. Rather,

 

1. They are a military branch that is founded with the express purpose of defending the empire of Orlais. Given their defection with Gaspard, I'm going to go on a limb and assume this is the empire as a political entity itself and not the reigning monarch per se. This, taken with their motto, makes them more utilitarian than anything else - their purpose is to serve the empire of Orlais in whatever way they believe is most beneficial to the empire.

 

2. I think this would most likely be up to the individual Chevalier - Michel de Chevin obviously believed his word to a commoner superseded his allegiance to his Empress, but I believe there are Chevaliers who would argue the opposite. It would most likely be circumstantial as well - but ceteris paribus, I'd argue saving the reigning monarch would indeed trump saving a town simply because a town has a lesser impact on the empire than the death of the emperor/empress.

 

3. That's actually an unofficial never really sanctioned ritual the Chevaliers get up to themselves, which is why I think it's better viewed as a twisted hazing ritual than actual Chevalier code. You're obliged to do it because of the people around you, not because of any codified rule. In terms of practicality, if I'm going to be completely heartless - Chevaliers aren't supposed to be sentimental, they're supposed to be weapons of the empire or Orlais and as such willing to give their own lives for it. Killing unarmed elves in alienages may be a way to cement that requisite callousness. Like all hazing rituals, participating in a horrific act together builds strong bonds between the graduating class, which will make them more effective as a composite entity in battle/against enemies. The Chevaliers may also have been involved in the Exalted March upon the Dales, in which case it could be a remnant of that period in their history - when they were enemies of the elves and slaying elves was considered something glorious. I think there's also a lot of indication that the Chevaliers and many Orlesians simply don't view elves as people. 

 

Basically I don't think the Chevaliers were ever supposed to stand on any moral grounds - rather they are bound by Honor and Glory, which is quite simply (1) acting upon your word once you give it & (2) doing cool things that go down in history 

 

All right, we're getting somewhere with my little mental exercise, so let's go in depth.

 

1. So they are a military order, and if we establish that their "good" is to serve the empire of Orlais, we should look at what that means. Before going to the Winter Palace in Inquisition, we are told that the Chevaliers sided with Gaspard despite having sworn an oath to serve the empress, and their reasons for doing so was because they felt Celene was anti-military and that Gaspard would bring back the glorious expansionist days of Drakon. 

 

So, in this context, their "good" is to build up the country, expand its borders and increase its influence. But given Gaspard in TME and how forthright he is in Inquisition, we should expect that a Chevalier's word is their bond as that is part of the Chevalier code. And their oaths given are tossed aside to support Gaspard, who is also a chevalier, because of the belief in a stronger Orlais.

 

So, we have a conundrum. We know with Michel and Gaspard that honoring your word once it is given is central to the Chevalier's. But we also know that they are a military order meant to fight for and defend Orlais and swear an oath to the reigning monarch as per Cullen said in Inquisition. Normally one does not take away from the other but it is clear that the Chevalier's as a whole feel it does if they choose Gaspard over Celene. 

 

Pretty much it's a conflict of keeping one's word of honor or acting in the interest of expanding Orlais in strength and power for most of them. And all I can do is wonder why so many Chevalier's felt that conflict.

 

2. It probably would be up to the individual Chevalier, but as I addressed in point one, the civil war has forced most Chevalier's to choose between two aspects of their duty, and nearly all of them have chosen to turn their backs on the reigning monarch in favor or one who is more pro-military. 

 

I wish the Orlesian Civil War was dug into a lot more than it was, and we had more interactions with the soldiers on both sides. It would add so much more to the complexity of the decision in the Winter Palace and understanding the chevalier code in more depth. 

 

I actually think this ties into question number three.

 

3. As for the alienage itself. I don't think it's an official rite of passage, but we do have two sources of it, and many more of their abuses, that let me know that it may actually be pretty common place. Loghain mother was raped and murdered by Chevalier in front of him and his father, and this happened to many other women across Ferelden, and even in Orlais as we see from that Orlesian perfume merchant in Denerim in Origins. 

 

Add in that one must be of noble birth before they can even be allowed to train as a Chevalier and Michel only got in because he forged a background, and Orlesian nobles are well known for their consideration of people in general, I feel we can safely say that defending the weak is not part of the Chevalier's code. Otherwise their honor would not allow the abuses that are so rampant. I'm sure not every Chevalier is like that, but enough of them are that it does call into serious question where the line of honor starts and ends in regards to which class of people. 

 

So this brings up the question, tying back into the first one. 

 

3b: If the Chevalier's, as a military order is meant and their "good" is to build up Orlais in strength and power, to whom is it for the benefit of? And whom do they fight for in the service of defending their country? For their country itself, for the honor of Orlais, or for the military might of Orlais and less the people themselves?

[Cecilia]

All right, we're getting somewhere with my little mental exercise, so let's go in depth.

 

1. So they are a military order, and if we establish that their "good" is to serve the empire of Orlais, we should look at what that means. Before going to the Winter Palace in Inquisition, we are told that the Chevaliers sided with Gaspard despite having sworn an oath to serve the empress, and their reasons for doing so was because they felt Celene was anti-military and that Gaspard would bring back the glorious expansionist days of Drakon. 

 

So, in this context, their "good" is to build up the country, expand its borders and increase its influence. But given Gaspard in TME and how forthright he is in Inquisition, we should expect that a Chevalier's word is their bond as that is part of the Chevalier code. And their oaths given are tossed aside to support Gaspard, who is also a chevalier, because of the belief in a stronger Orlais.

 

So, we have a conundrum. We know with Michel and Gaspard that honoring your word once it is given is central to the Chevalier's. But we also know that they are a military order meant to fight for and defend Orlais and swear an oath to the reigning monarch as per Cullen said in Inquisition. Normally one does not take away from the other but it is clear that the Chevalier's as a whole feel it does if they choose Gaspard over Celene. 

 

Pretty much it's a conflict of keeping one's word of honor or acting in the interest of expanding Orlais in strength and power for most of them. And all I can do is wonder why so many Chevalier's felt that conflict.

 

2. It probably would be up to the individual Chevalier, but as I addressed in point one, the civil war has forced most Chevalier's to choose between two aspects of their duty, and nearly all of them have chosen to turn their backs on the reigning monarch in favor or one who is more pro-military. 

 

I wish the Orlesian Civil War was dug into a lot more than it was, and we had more interactions with the soldiers on both sides. It would add so much more to the complexity of the decision in the Winter Palace and understanding the chevalier code in more depth. 

 

I actually think this ties into question number three.

 

3. As for the alienage itself. I don't think it's an official rite of passage, but we do have two sources of it, and many more of their abuses, that let me know that it may actually be pretty common place. Loghain mother was raped and murdered by Chevalier in front of him and his father, and this happened to many other women across Ferelden, and even in Orlais as we see from that Orlesian perfume merchant in Denerim in Origins. 

 

Add in that one must be of noble birth before they can even be allowed to train as a Chevalier and Michel only got in because he forged a background, and Orlesian nobles are well known for their consideration of people in general, I feel we can safely say that defending the weak is not part of the Chevalier's code. Otherwise their honor would not allow the abuses that are so rampant. I'm sure not every Chevalier is like that, but enough of them are that it does call into serious question where the line of honor starts and ends in regards to which class of people. 

 

So this brings up the question, tying back into the first one. 

 

3b: If the Chevalier's, as a military order is meant and their "good" is to build up Orlais in strength and power, to whom is it for the benefit of? And whom do they fight for in the service of defending their country? For their country itself, for the honor of Orlais, or for the military might of Orlais and less the people themselves?

 

1. As I stated in my analysis/understanding of the Chevalier code, their loyalty is to the empire of Orlais, not to whoever is seated upon the throne of Orlais. So if the Chevaliers genuinely believed that Celene was not fit to rule Orlais and no longer put the interests of the empire first, then it does follow that they are free to seek a leader of the right lineage who would be fit to rule. It is also stated in DA:I that Gaspard is actually the intended original legitimate ruler of Orlais and Celene was able to take the throne only through politically out-maneuvering him. I doubt that the Chevaliers would have defaulted to Gaspard if he didn't have a legitimate claim to the throne.

 

2. The difference here is the conflict is not between being constrained to save either your ruler or a town of commonfolk - so that's a false analogy - in which I believe the Chevaliers, ceteris paribus, would choose the ruler because of the greater impact upon the empire. There is no such dichotomy in the civil war because we are led to believe by the lore/advisers that either Gaspard or Celene or even Briala would be a sufficient counter to the threat of disunity in the South - the key is simply in an end to the conflict with one capable ruler at the helm. Given Gaspard is already in conflict with Celene over the throne, there is no reason why the Chevaliers are not free within their code to choose Gaspard as that final ruler as opposed to Celene, whom they have no explicit allegiance to.

 

3. That's definitely true - the Chevaliers are not about chivalry, but rather about expediency. They're trained to take advantage of opponents' weaknesses in fights and aim for the helmless head (ASoIaF reference sorry~)

 

3b. I personally interpret this as allegiance to the empire of Orlais as a political entity - which also explains why they are only chosen from the nobility, who are the direct beneficiaries of a strong Orlesian empire as a political entity. It matters less who is on the throne or what kinds of lives commonfolk are leading and much more how strong the empire itself is. Choosing them from the nobility ensures that their interests and the political entity that is the empire of Orlais' interests are generally aligned and provides additional assurance of their loyalty.

 

Granted we really don't know much so this is my extrapolation. But I do think this makes them a very interesting group/power in the game that would be a lot of fun to explore more in the future (esp as a PC/companion).

[Aimi]

Their first loyalty is apparently to the empire itself not to the person warming the throne and they apparently felt that Celene had become unfit to rule the empire in which case the honorable thing would be to save the empire from a unfit ruler.

Better to tear the country apart themselves than allow somebody else to maybe tear it apart for them?

[Master Warder Z_]

I mean I doubt all of the Chevaliers are like "yaylet'sgomurderelvesyespls" - in a sense they're following orders as much as the KG are (none of which makes anything either group does right ofc)

Also I think it's a bit wrong to debate the Chevaliers purely in terms of "are they moral?" because they're more of a military force with a code of honor than a Templar/Seeker-equivalent. I'm never going to argue they're moral positive people, but I think there's a solid philosophical foundation there at the heart of it (honor does not preclude tactics, and glory is not won through foolishness) that can definitely be salvaged.

I think there are many military orders through out history that held to a code that compelled/allowed them to commit horrific acts when provoked or ordered to.

In fact I hate to invoke Godwin although I still refuse to acknowledge his "law" as a law...anyway but the creed fits the topic well.

"My Honor is Loyalty"

o.o Subjective honor creeds aside I do believe these fellows are quite interesting.

[Aimi]

In fact I hate to invoke Godwin although I still refuse to acknowledge his "law" as a law...anyway but the creed fits the topic well.

It's not an invocation of Godwin's Law to point out that codes of honor do not prevent people from committing monstrous acts; the Nazis and chevaliers are merely two of a long, long list of such groups. Pointing out alienage massacres to forumite chevalier apostles is no less legitimate than pointing out Malmedy or the "partisan war" to Blut und Ehre-spouting Wehrmacht loyalists.

[Master Warder Z_]

<.< I actually paid a pretty penny for a legitimate non replication knife with that particular engraving.

Nothing exuberant or ridiculous by any means but it was around four hundred euro's.

I know period metal working well enough to spot fakes.

But my fascination with darker parts of modern history aside; I'll point out as a military order there are required tasks that are unseemly but if orders if legitimate are to be followed, if you don't they will still occur.

I'll avoid personal experience on the subject in favor of general principle.

[Cecilia]

I think there are many military orders through out history that held to a code that compelled/allowed them to commit horrific acts when provoked or ordered to.

In fact I hate to invoke Godwin although I still refuse to acknowledge his "law" as a law...anyway but the creed fits the topic well.

"My Honor is Loyalty"

o.o Subjective honor creeds aside I do believe these fellows are quite interesting.

 

That's more or less what I've been trying to explain~ Honor codes aren't moral codes - they're simply an understanding that one will always act in accordance with certain preconceived rules. It's almost like saying snow's honor code is being cold and wet. 

 

Though I would say though - I don't think honor is subjective. Rather I think it's more objective than morality - honor is more absolute (if a chevalier gives his word, then he will act in accordance with it) There isn't really a question of moral or immoral and simply a discernment between in accordance and in conflict. In a sense, an honor code is a blanket contract that an individual that subscribes to it makes with all of society.

 

So back to the beginning of this thread more or less - Chevaliers can be terrible people, but terrible people can act with honor.

[Aimi]

But my fascination with darker parts of modern history aside; I'll point out as a military order there are required tasks that are unseemly but if orders if legitimate are to be followed, if you don't they will still occur.

lol the Nürnberg defense

[Master Warder Z_]

lol the Nürnberg defense

I didn't see any trials in front of the UN after Kabul.

I'll leave it at that.

[Aimi]

I didn't see any trials in front of the UN after Kabul.

I'll leave it at that.

http://en.wikipedia....s–ought_problem

[Master Warder Z_]

http://en.wikipedia....s–ought_problem

Pfft a literary argument?

Sure go with that.

The irony is that it calls for me to make some grand moralistic point, rather then merely pointing out there were are salvos called down on areas specifically because they would demoralize the civil population via high casualty rate.

Theoretically it's a sound and tried military practice.

Legal? Well not so much, least not according to Geneva.

Of course as I said it's sort of funny.

Moralism? From me? Dear we need to meet for a coffee one day and I'll tell you all I've done for my adopted homeland. I'm not important enough for classification.

[Aimi]

Pfft a literary argument?

Sure go with that.

The irony is that it calls for me to make some grand moralistic point, rather then merely pointing out there were are salvos called down on areas specifically because they would demoralize the civil population via high casualty rate.

Theoretically it's a sound and tried military practice.

Legal? Well not so much, least not according to Geneva.

Of course as I said it's sort of funny.

Moralism? From me? Dear we need to meet for a coffee one day and I'll tell you all I've done for my adopted homeland. I'm not important enough for classification.

Wow, I have to admit, I never expected something that incoherent and that far away from the meaning of anything I've talked about. You go have fun with...whatever it is you think we're discussing.

There's a Billy Madison clip that's relevant to this, somewhere...

[Master Warder Z_]

Wow, I have to admit, I never expected something that incoherent and that far away from the meaning of anything I've talked about. You go have fun with...whatever it is you think we're discussing.

There's a Billy Madison clip that's relevant to this, somewhere...

It's about as relevant to using a moralistic literary device in response to a comparison of one militant action to another when no moral stance was established.

o.o Cruise missiles are just a neat add on.

[Cecilia]

I'm a little confused, but can I just interject that a lack of a trial/inquiry into an action doesn't have anything to do with whether that action is right/wrong and more to do with political expediency?

 

Jumping out of trying to explain the Chevaliers for the Chevaliers, they are a pretty gruesome bunch with squandered potential - whether you are giving or taking orders certain acts should be considered pseudo-objectively morally reprehensible even if we only consider them from a long term societal utility perspective.

 

Just to use the DA:I context - Bull's Chargers state that their prisoners are treated well because they'd want the same for any of theirs - it's a game theory strategy that seeks to establish a cooperative outcome which is, in the end, more beneficial to all. Certain strategies in warfare, certain domains in warfare are set out of bounds not necessarily because people find them repulsive, but because allowing them results in a less optimal outcome for everyone in the long run because history is always a repeat game. 

 

If we're simply playing one round, you may benefit from attacking my civilians/utilizing chemical warfare, but once our game repeats, your initial use of those strategies will result in my subsequent use of those strategies even if you no longer wish to have those strategies be a viable resort in the repeated game. Together, we would move to a new equilibrium in which the use of those strategies becomes the default choice and everyone is worse off as a result. Many rules that govern warfare are not just moral, they are utilitarian and are a means through which players communicate, signal, and cooperate. 

[Aimi]

Just to use the DA:I context - Bull's Chargers state that their prisoners are treated well because they'd want the same for any of theirs - it's a game theory strategy that seeks to establish a cooperative outcome which is, in the end, more beneficial to all.

For what it's worth, this was probably the first time that any BioWare game acknowledged bounds of acceptable practice in war as anything other than purely 'moral' constraints. It was actually kind of gratifying to see, along with how the Chargers are one of the few times any BioWare game has used the word 'merc' as anything other than a four-letter word.

Frustratingly, most of the games - and indeed most media generally - portray the 'big decisions' of warfare as, well...'Make the tough decision to sacrifice the few for the many/sacrifice the few for the mission'. 'Operate outside the rules to Get Things Done'. 'Sometimes casual brutality is necessary because It Just Is'. There's no recognition that there might be motivating factors for these actions other than ethical precepts. And sometimes, questions that are fundamentally amoral are addressed as though they have some sort of moral component: tactics and morality always intersect in BioWare games in frankly idiotic ways.

[Solbranthius]

We don't know a whole lot about them so it's a shame that people are latching onto the stuff that paints them in a terrible light only to then conveniently ignore the stuff that redeems them. Why does everything in these debates have to revolve around extremes? The Chevaliers have a dark side. Big deal - it's nothing we haven't seen from every other major organisation within the setting thus far.

[Incantrix]

We don't know a whole lot about them so it's a shame that people are latching onto the stuff that paints them in a terrible light only to then conveniently ignore the stuff that redeems them. Why does everything in these debates have to revolve around extremes? The Chevaliers have a dark side. Big deal - it's nothing we haven't seen from every other major organisation within the setting thus far.

 

I think the main reason is that the people/organizations who have dark sides never claim that they are good people/organizations. They are upfront about their ways. 

 

Personally, I'd have less of a problem if they were just honest about them not being the "Pure white" honorable organization they claim to be.