I said, I basically think the law and order is very necessary. However, if only with the law's circumventing can you act correctly, then you need to break. History has proved this quite often.
Define 'correctly' in a way that doesn't mean 'according to my preferences.'
Of course you'll never stop the corruption if you think corruption is acceptable if the laws are wrong. Everyone feels the laws they dislike are wrong, and corruption only subsides if the rules are enforced anyway.
Societies with low corruption aren't socieites in which everyone likes the laws. They're societies in which laws are applied consistently, whether you like them or not. If you don't abide by laws you don't like, you give every reason for others to ignore the laws they don't like... even the ones you think are 'good.' Which, cumulatively, gives you... corruption, and the sort where 'who you know' matters more than what you actually do.
If the applicant gets to choose which laws are good or not, which ones are to be followed or not, they don't actually like the law- they just like permissions to do what they want.
It is very, very easy to make a case that the laws of the Circle system are 'good.' They provide protections for both mundanes and mages to survive. They allow the pursuit of dangerous people who take risks whose consequences typically fall on mundanes. They provide for the only major society in Thedas where mages aren't elevated to positions of power over mundanes as a matter of birth. It protects a majority from a historically domineering minority, and it offers enclaves for that minority to live without many of the extreme difficulties they might otherwise face in Thedas, privileges that many mundanes will never have.
Is it perfect? No- and the failures to uphold the laws by the authorities don't help either, and lead to abuses. But 'good' isn't the same as perfect- and if a system that protects the majority while at least trying to shelter a minority isn't good enough to be worth following, nothing can reasonably be expected to be.
So, please- provide what you consider a society of laws, which corruption and breaking can't be justified on account of the laws being indisputably 'good'.
We can not talk about the law as the general good. People created, than that is not perfect. For example bribery is corruption. Still, the bribery can serve peoples rescue in the bad times.
We can not talk about the law as the general good. People created, than that is not perfect. For example bribery is corruption. Still, the bribery can serve peoples rescue in the bad times.
And it serves them in good times. But systemically, when bribery is tolerated at all, it benefits the people most able to exercise it- not the poor and desperate, but the rich and already powerful. Who least need it, but can most benefit it, and often at the expense of the poor and desperate... occasionally making them poor and desperate.
But, here's the thing- you can't stop the Big Bad Bribery if you tolerate the little bribery as well. You'll never stop the premise, and there is no logical end-point of 'this much bribery is acceptable, but no more.' Nor is there 'bribery for the poor, but not the rich'- when you engage in corruption, the people who can make the bigger bribes are the ones who are going to get their way. And those people are going to pay the bribes to get away with doing things to the weaker and desperate.
Systemic bribery, like inflation, is a hugely regressive social aspect. It hurts the poor collectively and consistently far more than it helps individual cases. But you can't get rid of it if you turn an eye away from the grass roots of it. Honest governance only exists when it doesn't expect or accept a payoff for doing or not doing it's job.
Of course, Hawke law-breaker. More than once he doing sins as well, especially in the Act1, and yes, in the MotA.
I just don't understand this indignation about the history of Hawke. Hawke absolutely no worse than any similar story's hero.
The only strong law system I saw in DA was the one from the circles.I thought it was pretty good on paper at least.
But it seems law is not that serious in the rest of Thedas.
Here's the "law" system in Denerim.
There's the "law" system invented by the nobility in Orlais called the Game.
I doubt "murdering someone who insulted you at dinner is ok " is written down anywhere ,but that's how it works.
Chevaliers can also do as they please , and are untouchable by the "law" .I mean I'm sure they can be punished under some circumstance , but who knows what those circumstance would be.
There's also the case of mercenaries , and Hawke and co can be counted as a mercenary group.Mercenaries are used by pretty much everyone who can pay them , and in theory they should be held to the laws like anyone else but of course not really .
In DA2 , Hawke mercenary group is supported by the Guardmans of Kirkwall (and you can make a case Aveline is heavily biaised towards hawke) , but they are also used by the templars , the Qunari , the Viscount and his office , the Prince of Strakhaven , some Kirkwall magistrate etc , etc...
You can't have a serious law system when everyone is corrupted and groups can make their own law system willy nilly and it is widely accepted to do so...
Most corruption is derived from people thinking they have good reasons for selectively following following the rules or enforcing the rules. That's why notoriously corrupt societies often have decent people and awful governments. Individually, everyone looks out for friends and family- and collectively, that leads to oligarchies, cliques, and systemic unfairness as everyone's personal goodness is more important than overall fairness or consistence.
Alas, goodness over lawfullness doesn't actually mitigate corruption over time, because all it does it invite other people to rationalize why their sense of morality and favoritism likewise validates ignorring those pesky, obstructive laws.
Not, mind you, that Hawke or anyone else in the party gives much of a hoot about any other laws along the way. DA2's morality follows more from the inherency of feels than any legal architecture- feelings of fairness, or revenge, or greater purpose justify anything (and end up ruining everything).
You know, I would usually agree with you, and your points in this discussion have been valid. I am a very strong believer in an effective legal system. Unfortunately we're not talking the UK or the USA here, we're talking about Kirkwall, where there are bandit and slaver gangs everywhere in the city; where mages are being hunted just for being mages... and I think in the other thread about mage Hawke, we accepted that they're willing to tolerate an apostate mage Hawke in Kirkwall because he/she is one of the few people actually helping to keep order in the city.
So... my view is that, yes, lawlessness is reprehensible, but crazy Kirkwall would do well with some morality as well - you know, with concepts like treating people fairly. After all, where would our legal system be without the concept of fairness?
The whole subplot of the game is how poor the law is in Kirkwall. That it needed a "hero" (for lack of a better word). I wouldn't fret too much about it.
This is what Arishok and Hawke clashed over. Or most Hawkes probably did. Some might've outright sided with the Arishok. It was about who could do it better. In a way, kind of like Loghain and Warden and who could better defend Ferelden. Same kind of conflict.. between the self-appointed "defenders".
On the issue of extradition of elves my Hawke finally had to admit the truth of Arishok... regardless he still had to kill him.
Rather, Hawke stops being a criminal (because he/she can no longer conduct that crime) for that particular activity. They might be a criminal if, say, conspiracy is an extended crime- the entire point of the Deep Road expedition is to corruptly buy safety for an apostate- but the crime of harboring an apostate ends.
Not that there aren't many, many other activities of questionable legality for Hawke to partake in. Breaking, entering, and manslaughter on the basis of hear-say- ie, the typical quest in Kirkwall- can provide plenty of opportunities for even an unimaginative prosecutor.
Yeah, that's true, but Mage Hawke is always a criminal no matter what then...... Because their an apostate...
According to what Cullen says during the scene, what they did was considered criminal; "Consider yourselves fortunate. Her cooperation allows us to spare you the punishment for harboring a dangerous mage this once."
This is why I am saying that Hawke is always a criminal in the game because according to the law in Kirkwall, Hawke is a criminal for hiding that they themselves are an apostate or for hiding that their sister is an apostate. That there is no option for Hawke to turn themselves or their sister in means that they are always breaking this law.
Or the GW Bethany, who's not really breaking any rules... So keep that in mind, the Rogue/Warrior Hawke is okay in that respect - but not Mage Hawke, lol. 
Always the rule breaking criminal...
On the issue of extradition of elves my Hawke finally had to admit the truth of Arishok... regardless he still had to kill him.
That's where I ended up.
I killed Kelder already in the previous act. The Arishok was right in seeing the problem. Not so much his solutions.
That's where I ended up.
I killed Kelder already in the previous act. The Arishok was right in seeing the problem. Not so much his solutions.
Yes, Kelder had to die, precisely because of the corruption of city administration. But I gave him to Fenris. He asked so nicely ...
Most corruption is derived from people thinking they have good reasons for selectively following following the rules or enforcing the rules. That's why notoriously corrupt societies often have decent people and awful governments. Individually, everyone looks out for friends and family- and collectively, that leads to oligarchies, cliques, and systemic unfairness as everyone's personal goodness is more important than overall fairness or consistence.
Alas, goodness over lawfullness doesn't actually mitigate corruption over time, because all it does it invite other people to rationalize why their sense of morality and favoritism likewise validates ignorring those pesky, obstructive laws.
Lawfulness over goodness doesn't mitigate corruption either, because it perpetuates the inequalities of power that lead to corruption. And turning the law into an end of itself risks forgetting its purpose.
However, when I once be dictator, I want such people. Lawful above all! 
You know, I would usually agree with you, and your points in this discussion have been valid. I am a very strong believer in an effective legal system. Unfortunately we're not talking the UK or the USA here, we're talking about Kirkwall, where there are bandit and slaver gangs everywhere in the city; where mages are being hunted just for being mages...
How do you think the UK or USA became the UK or USA you know today? They used to be Kirkwallian in nature- bandits and slavers and weak central governments and all, where certain minorities were hunted for being minorities (and without a good reason of Magic is Dangerous to boot).
They became effective legal systems because they gradually didn't tolerate rampant corruption, even when people disagreed on the laws. To different degrees, of course- corruption never really goes away- but they never would have gotten there had elites constantly and flagrantly violated the laws on a whim and deny that they even applied. (Relative) lawfulness generally preluded the changing of laws to make them better, not the other way around. Obeying laws you don't like is a key part of the social contract of a democracy (where the majority, not you, gets to decide), and accepting the out-comesof laws you disagreement has been a long, key component of agitation for reform. (Appealing verdicts rather than attempting to flee courts, accepting fines/sentences as part of civil disobediance, and of course not launching an armed revolt every transition of power).
So if you think Kirkwall is bad, I fully agree. And if you want to keep it that way, to let people accept that gangs can go about fighting at night and get away with anything so long as they're strong and rich enough to bribe the right people, go ahead and keep doing that in the name of the Right Thing. You might unplug a few weeds, but you'll never change the culture of corruption. At best you'll just change the patron at top.
and I think in the other thread about mage Hawke, we accepted that they're willing to tolerate an apostate mage Hawke in Kirkwall because he/she is one of the few people actually helping to keep order in the city.
And because Hawke pays bribes and is too deadly to mess with when Hawke decides to spread disorder to the city instead of order. Don't forget that 'Champion' means 'fear' as much as 'loved.'
Let's not ignore, of course, that one of the other few people actually helping keep order in the City is the Templars... who Hawke and company frequently undermine. Because they're in the wrong and Hawke is right? Or because of a self-interested power struggle?
Who's to say it can't be both?
So... my view is that, yes, lawlessness is reprehensible, but crazy Kirkwall would do well with some morality as well - you know, with concepts like treating people fairly. After all, where would our legal system be without the concept of fairness?
Fairness according to whom?
The western concept of legal fairness doesn't depent on the consent or appreciation of the hunted- it's fairness as deemed by the majority of society and their approved laws, and the majority of Thedasian society approves of Templars keeping Mages in the Circles. Abuses by Templars aren't fair, and even much of the Chantry and other Templars would agree, but the Circle system would be considered fair just as it's considered widely legitimate. Apostate supporters like the Hawkes aren't the majority opinion on the Circles, or anywhere close.
If we want to consider what, say the modern Western governments would do with the mage situation, it certainly wouldn't be mage independence. As a public threat and strategic resource, modern Western fairness would run one hell of a security state operation on people who, on a bad day, easily fall into the WMD category for chemical or biological natures. Think all the global arms control and non-proliferation efforts, combined with mass surveillance to identify emergent and uncontrolled mages, combined with security state intrusions to uncover maleficar cabals, combined with constant competition with the criminal underworld to locate criminal/unsanctioned mages, combined with utilization of mage efforts in line to advance the national effort, and of course a bit of police protection to protect valuable assets from rival powers.
Forget ideologies like socialism or fascism. The modern western democracies would nationalize the **** out of the mages, and probably conscript them for good measure. They certainly wouldn't be free of constant oversight and controls, even if the modern surveillance state is so conveniently less obviously intrusive.
Lawfulness over goodness doesn't mitigate corruption either, because it perpetuates the inequalities of power that lead to corruption. And turning the law into an end of itself risks forgetting its purpose.
I disagree, based on experience in and study of some rather corrupt places.
Lawfulness over goodness provides consistency, which besides being a good in and of itself allows the quality of laws to actually matter. Consistently applied laws are the best defense against a corrupt elite- not only does the public perception of legitimacy begin to follow those laws, making corruption more costly (politically and socially) for those who would do it, but the legitimacy of those perceived laws becomes a potential weapon against corrupt elites in their own power struggles. The more consistently they're applied, the more force laws have with a public. No one respects or buys into laws that are routinely violated and ignorrred, but everyone respects a sense of certainty. That's how systems of laws work- by people believing they'll be upheld.
Bad laws are a problem, but even good laws only matter when evenly upheld. When only selectively upheld, they're the same as bad laws: a means by which the already inherit inequality of power can beat other people over the head with their power.
Lawfulness, not goodness, is what mitigates the corruption of power. It's what differentiates systemic protection from a patron-client relationship. Inequalities of power exist regardless- rule of law is what tempers that, and the only way to establish a culture of rule of law is to consistently enforce that standard in both directions. Elites have to agree that laws apply to them (where as in an abusive law system, the elite are generally corrupt themselves and aren't held to the law), and the elites also have to apply the laws consistently downward.
Building a culture of rule of law is a slow, incremental process- and one that gets set back every time elites act as patrons and make special pleading exemptions for their favored causes. Consistency, not virtue, is the most important in fighting corruption- or else even anti-corruption efforts, like the Chinese purge of rivals to the current leadership, become tools of further corruption.
Lawfulness over goodness doesn't mitigate corruption either, because it perpetuates the inequalities of power that lead to corruption. And turning the law into an end of itself risks forgetting its purpose.
Every state on Thedas has massive inequalities of power. Only Tevinter seems likely to approach Kirkwall's endemic corruption.
Lawfulness, not goodness, is what mitigates the corruption of power. It's what differentiates systemic protection from a patron-client relationship. Inequalities of power exist regardless- rule of law is what tempers that, and the only way to establish a culture of rule of law is to consistently enforce that standard in both directions. Elites have to agree that laws apply to them (where as in an abusive law system, the elite are generally corrupt themselves and aren't held to the law), and the elites also have to apply the laws consistently downward.
Not every state constitutional state. Beautiful utopia, but it does not exist and can not exist as long as human are living on the earth. Man is basically not bad. But it's not good or logical. Especially in mass. Easily impressionable. The revolution has fundamentally wrong and illegal. Still, sometimes necessary.
Not every state constitutional state. Beautiful utopia, but it does not exist and can not exist as long as human are living on the earth.
You don't need a constitution, or even state. What you do need are standards and precedents of dealing with laws in your way that you might disagree with. Nakedly self-interest and self-beneficial corruption mixed with violence and self-righteous rationalization is hardly a new one.
But hey, if you're okay with corruption for the right reasons, so what? What's the problem? Corruption is Cool
™
(When it's by me and mine.)
Building a culture of rule of law is a slow, incremental process- and one that gets set back every time elites act as patrons and make special pleading exemptions for their favored causes. Consistency, not virtue, is the most important in fighting corruption- or else even anti-corruption efforts, like the Chinese purge of rivals to the current leadership, become tools of further corruption.
Every state on Thedas has massive inequalities of power. Only Tevinter seems likely to approach Kirkwall's endemic corruption.
Of course this fits in well with our own history. Corruption was historically ubiquitous until very recently.
Until recently? Things are still corrupt, it's the nature of politics and the psychological effect of power. I think it's more difficult to hide corruption as technology increases and social media can make things viral. But even uncovering corruption hasn't seemed to have an immense effect in taking down the corruption, at least for any length of time.
So if you think Kirkwall is bad, I fully agree. And if you want to keep it that way, to let people accept that gangs can go about fighting at night and get away with anything so long as they're strong and rich enough to bribe the right people, go ahead and keep doing that in the name of the Right Thing. You might unplug a few weeds, but you'll never change the culture of corruption. At best you'll just change the patron at top.
And because Hawke pays bribes and is too deadly to mess with when Hawke decides to spread disorder to the city instead of order. Don't forget that 'Champion' means 'fear' as much as 'loved.'
Wait, since when has it been moral to do that?
Anyway, my original point was about Aveline being able to make the distinction between morality and a strict adherence to the law. I never saw Hawke supporting bandits and disorder (is it even possible in the story?), and Aveline's support of Hawke and co., to me, was not corruption but pragmatism, since both of them had largely the same goals (peace in Kirkwall).
Again, I'm not debating the usefulness of the law in societies here, I'm talking about the very specific situation of Hawke, Aveline and Kirkwall. I agree that Hawke could become corrupt and abuse the favoured position she was in, but if we accept that Aveline has an overarching sense of morality, then she would never allow Hawke to do that, friend or no.
Until recently? Things are still corrupt, it's the nature of politics and the psychological effect of power. I think it's more difficult to hide corruption as technology increases and social media can make things viral. But even uncovering corruption hasn't seemed to have an immense effect in taking down the corruption, at least for any length of time.
Yes, beautiful idea. 
For example in the East-Central-Europe many hoped that the corruption will end, as the Wall will collapse, but the Wall was gone, the corruption remained. Where more strongly, where less, but still it exists. As elsewhere in the world too, I think.
(And there is a political system in which the compliance with the current law makes it the corruption even stronger.)
Wait, since when has it been moral to do that?
Anyway, my original point was about Aveline being able to make the distinction between morality and a strict adherence to the law. I never saw Hawke supporting bandits and disorder (is it even possible in the story?), and Aveline's support of Hawke and co., to me, was not corruption but pragmatism, since both of them had largely the same goals (peace in Kirkwall).
Again, I'm not debating the usefulness of the law in societies here, I'm talking about the very specific situation of Hawke, Aveline and Kirkwall. I agree that Hawke could become corrupt and abuse the favoured position she was in, but if we accept that Aveline has an overarching sense of morality, then she would never allow Hawke to do that, friend or no.
True. We very digressed from Kirkwall' story. The point that I think Aveline do the right thing in the given situation.
It stretches the bounds of believably but we all know individuals who hate each other but still cooperate when its in their interests.
It stretches the bounds of believably but we all know individuals who hate each other but still cooperate when its in their interests.
Even hate is not absolutely certain, I have some good acquaintances (not exactly firends, but not too far), who has a completely different opinion on many things, but we respect and even like each other.
Do góry
