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.
Very good point.
I think I can classify the rival system as "agree to disagree".
Isn't Meredith's "anti-corruption" position more like the Chinese purge of rivals than any genuine anti-corruption campaign?
There's no sign that I can recall that she's going after templars who commit abuses against mages and at the least indications that her own use of tranquillity goes further than Chantry law intended.
Not really. Until Act 3 (which is when she's already insane), Meredith's anti-corruption is across the board. Templar abusers like what's-his-face (alrik?) have to hide illegal Tranqilization, NPCs lament that that it's no longer as easy to bribe templars as it used to be, and Meredith even makes high-risk attempts on noble-related apostates, such as Dupis (or however it was spelled- the blood mage suspect for the serial killer).
Meredith's power is limited and so she has to pick her battles- she doesn't have enough to go after Hawke directly in Act 2, when he's got the Viscount's favor- but she doesn't pick her battles on the basis of protecting friends either. There is no Meredith-ignorred cabal that she permits because it's politically allied. Accusations of Templar corruption we investigate in Act 2 are consistently unsanctioned, or forbidden by Meredith (such as the Tranquil solution). Alrik even has to blackmail fellow Templars when going after Anders. Meredith goes after her rivals because she sees what they're doing as wrong (such as the lyrium smuggling), not because she's not getting a cut.
The distinction with the Chinese purge is that Meredith isn't purging rivals but leaving allies complicit in the same things alone. Through Act 2, she's not sanctioning illegal tranquility at all. Come Act 3, when she is insane and is, she's not prosecuting Templars for doing the same.
Orlais seems utterly corrupt. So does Orzammar. Fereldan has relatively low power disparities. It doesn't seem like a bastion of justice either, but the clearest cases of injustice we see are against the Elves, who are most powerless people of Fereldan.
The only place that might not be massively corrupt are the Qunari, which is supposed to be a very equal society. Though I'd argue that any sort of real Qunari state would be both massively unequal and massively corrupt.
Of course this fits in well with our own history. Corruption was historically ubiquitous until very recently.
Indeed it was, and still is- which is why the 'it's okay for me to be corrupt if the society is corrupt' angle can often come off as culturally chauvenist. It justifies continuing inflicting a social harm on a lesser society, rationalizes hypocrisy on who the law applies to, and rests on familiar fallacies such as demanding perfection in exchange for, well, not doing what they condemn others of.
One of the more interesting defenses I heard from a man who took bribes from Westerners when he was accused of corruption was 'I'm corrupt? You're the ones paying me.'
Condemning a group for being corrupt when you're an active participant makes claims that your corruption is alright just a form of special pleading. The moment you begin 'my corruption is morally acceptable because-', you've lost position to condemn corruption in general because you're already conceding it's a matter of context, not objectively bad. At which point, your argument becomes subjective and unsustainable. What sort of reasons (and who gets to decide them?) for deciding when the law shouldn't apply? And why does that even matter?
What, for example, does Kirkwall being corrupt have to do with Anders being willing to murder a mage who's afraid of him? How un-corrupt does a city have to be so that we should expect would-be murderers to be turned in as menaces to the public?
@Dean_The_Young
Stop roleplaying as lawful/neutral here, go back to topic! (Please! )Then, what's your opinion: is the rivalry bond beliveable, or not?
Yes, Keldar had to die, precisely because of the corruption of city administration. But I gave him to Fenris. He asked so nicely ...
Spoiler
That animation on Kelder's face cracks me up when Fenris kills him.
Is that sick? 
@Dean_The_Young
Stop roleplaying as lawful/neutral here, go back to topic! (Please! )Then, what's your opinion: is the rivalry bond beliveable, or not?
If you wanted to stop discussing the subject, wouldn't you have quit the first time you said you were done? Like, two or three pages ago?
Nothing required you to keep responding to my position, after all. Which is what it was from the start.
If you wanted to stop discussing the subject, wouldn't you have quit the first time you said you were done? Like, two or three pages ago?
Nothing required you to keep responding to my position, after all. Which is what it was from the start.
Logical answer. I also departed from the topic.
Logical answer. I also departed from the topic.
Not really- you're still here, and still replying.
Two bits say you do again.
Not really- you're still here, and still replying.
Two bits say you do again.
What not really? Your answer was logical. (At most mine does not.) 
What not really? Your answer was logical. (At most mine does not.)
You didn't depart from the topic.
And I am now the proud owner of two more bits. Woot woot.
Double or nothing says you come back once more for the final word again.
Not really. Until Act 3 (which is when she's already insane), Meredith's anti-corruption is across the board. Templar abusers like what's-his-face (alrik?) have to hide illegal Tranqilization, NPCs lament that that it's no longer as easy to bribe templars as it used to be, and Meredith even makes high-risk attempts on noble-related apostates, such as Dupis (or however it was spelled- the blood mage suspect for the serial killer).
Meredith's power is limited and so she has to pick her battles- she doesn't have enough to go after Hawke directly in Act 2, when he's got the Viscount's favor- but she doesn't pick her battles on the basis of protecting friends either. There is no Meredith-ignorred cabal that she permits because it's politically allied. Accusations of Templar corruption we investigate in Act 2 are consistently unsanctioned, or forbidden by Meredith (such as the Tranquil solution). Alrik even has to blackmail fellow Templars when going after Anders. Meredith goes after her rivals because she sees what they're doing as wrong (such as the lyrium smuggling), not because she's not getting a cut.
The distinction with the Chinese purge is that Meredith isn't purging rivals but leaving allies complicit in the same things alone. Through Act 2, she's not sanctioning illegal tranquility at all. Come Act 3, when she is insane and is, she's not prosecuting Templars for doing the same.
Indeed it was, and still is- which is why the 'it's okay for me to be corrupt if the society is corrupt' angle can often come off as culturally chauvenist. It justifies continuing inflicting a social harm on a lesser society, rationalizes hypocrisy on who the law applies to, and rests on familiar fallacies such as demanding perfection in exchange for, well, not doing what they condemn others of.
One of the more interesting defenses I heard from a man who took bribes from Westerners when he was accused of corruption was 'I'm corrupt? You're the ones paying me.'
Condemning a group for being corrupt when you're an active participant makes claims that your corruption is alright just a form of special pleading. The moment you begin 'my corruption is morally acceptable because-', you've lost position to condemn corruption in general because you're already conceding it's a matter of context, not objectively bad. At which point, your argument becomes subjective and unsustainable. What sort of reasons (and who gets to decide them?) for deciding when the law shouldn't apply? And why does that even matter?
What, for example, does Kirkwall being corrupt have to do with Anders being willing to murder a mage who's afraid of him? How un-corrupt does a city have to be so that we should expect would-be murderers to be turned in as menaces to the public?
An interesting ethical question: In a corrupt society are you more corrupt if you follow the (corrupt) law, or if you break the law for the "greater good" (potentially encouraging further lawlessness)
An interesting ethical question: In a corrupt society are you more corrupt if you follow the (corrupt) law, or if you break the law for the "greater good" (potentially encouraging further lawlessness)
An interesting question, we debated, but the views are not neared, so it was useless to talk about it further. It was absolutely deadlock. And then I think it is beyond the scope of of tiis forum topics.
But yes, my opinion is: the lawful not always the good.
An interesting ethical question: In a corrupt society are you more corrupt if you follow the (corrupt) law, or if you break the law for the "greater good" (potentially encouraging further lawlessness)
That's a simple answer- you are more corrupt. The question to be lawful or to be good is a separate one, but the issue of corruption itself is distinct.
Societal corruption is a prisoner's game- it's (almost) always in everyone's incentive to be corrupt, whether other people are corrupt or not. That knowledge- and the safe assumption that everyone else will be corrupt as well- is rationalizes everyone else to be corrupt on the belief that everyone else will also be corrupt... even though everyone being corrupt is the worst outcome for everyone.
Corruption only goes away with what game theory casts as reoccurring games- that games repeating themselves allow a pattern to be built to establish trust between players and and expectation of the future. Elements such as reciprocity, future considerations, and threats of future retaliation can deter cheaters. On the other hand, the desire to 'punish', or feeling entitled to cheat yourself- such as if someone else cheated before- can start spirals in which all parties defect from an agreement, causing a new pattern.
Corruption only falls as an aggregate when players agree not to defect, regardless of what other players do. This benefits the corrupt- after all, the best situation for any person is if they can be corrupt while everyone else plays by the rules- but collectively it benefits everyone more than the alternative culture of corruption. Those players form groups, mutually reinforcing themselves, and spreading the benefits. Group expectations and threats of retaliation pressure more people into not defecting, adding to the group and increasing it's size and influence until it overcomes.
It's a long, slow process of incrementalism that builds on itself. It's much quicker to ruin than to build, since trust breakdown can easily run away.
It's also, alas, incompatible with 'corruption is cool for me, but not for thee', be it morally virtuous or not, because whether it is good enough is incredibly subjective. Lawful good societies don't form because everyone shares the same idea of good and agree to follow the rules because they're good. Lawful societies are enforced, even on the people who disagree that they are good.
Putting goodness before lawfulness is certainly an individual moral choice- but it doesn't build lawful societies that the same person my require as justification for being lawful.
[...]
Welcome back my old lawful-neutral* friend!
*Just be careful: the blind follow of the law can corrupt the man, and turn him to evil!
Welcome back my old lawful-neutral* friend!
*Just be careful: the blind follow of the law can corrupt the man, and turn him to evil!
Who's blind about it?
There's a difference between being in denial about corruption- claiming individual moral choices without recognizing harmful effects from pursuing them- and recognizing how it does and doesn't perpetuate itself. Corruption is only bad if you think the harms of it outweigh the benefits.
Do you think a corrupt society with uneven and arbitrarily applied laws can ever be a good society?
Who's blind about it?
There's a difference between being in denial about corruption- claiming individual moral choices without recognizing harmful effects from pursuing them- and recognizing how it does and doesn't perpetuate itself. Corruption is only bad if you think the harms of it outweigh the benefits.
Do you think a corrupt society with uneven and arbitrarily applied laws can ever be a good society?
I just say: to follow anything and anyone blindly stupid and wrong. This also applies to the law.
My opinion:
The laws of a well-functioning society are acceptable, and acceptable also the leadership.
A corrupt society's corrupt laws and/or corrupt leadership do not serve the good. Such leadership and theirs law you not necessary to obey, in fact: in many cases is simply a sin.
But anyway I'm will not to convince you. I gues, you think I advocate of the corruption. Even this is not true. Indeed I explicitly reject the corruption. And this is not a contradiction.
An interesting ethical question: In a corrupt society are you more corrupt if you follow the (corrupt) law, or if you break the law for the "greater good" (potentially encouraging further lawlessness)
You are misusing the word "corrupt". The law is not corrupt. It may be oppressive, excessive, cruel, unfair, archaic or stupid but it is not corrupt. Mind you, defying a law because you consider it to be those things isn't corrupt either. It's rebellious.
Do you think a corrupt society with uneven and arbitrarily applied laws can ever be a good society?
Only as much as a tyrannical society with evenly applied laws can be good. So, not really.
However, I think the main point of friction is the amount of 'bad' each can cause, or better said, which is the lesser evil. Like how stealing is bad, but pales in comparison to genocide. Godwin's law begs to be invoked right now, but Thedas provides other examples: I'd rather live in Kirkwall than under the Qun. And given that the goodness of a society can't be measured just as a closed environment, but also in relation with other societies, we can also point out that Kirkwall has caused much, much less harm to the world than the Qun.
It's Kant versus Constant in "On a supposed right to lie from philanthropy" all over again.
I think in order to answer that you have to first define what the purpose of law is, and whether the thing the law in question is protecting or prohibiting actually constitutes a crime or not (there is a difference...non crimes tend not to have victims, for example).An interesting ethical question: In a corrupt society are you more corrupt if you follow the (corrupt) law, or if you break the law for the "greater good" (potentially encouraging further lawlessness)
To Be Lawful Or To Be Good?
Do góry
