346 réponses à ce sujet

[fantasypisces]

Asylumer wrote...


But that's completely ridiculous. Why would Loghain use reverse psychology there? The opposite of jump into the fray is... jump into the fray?

It makes no sense what-so-ever.

Tallon's analogy to women is good. I think it was more to make sure he would, gah I'm having a brain-fart and can't explain it.  Cailan sort of strikes me as a man that could get cold feet. But by pressuring saying "stay out of the battle" he thinks one might be meaning he wouldn't be good, he wouldn't contribute, which plays on his heroic fantasies.

But if they were to not mention him fighting, before the battle he might have gotten cold-feet and said "maybe it is better if I hang back". I can totally see Cailan being like that. But that is simply how I view the character, you don't view it that way and I respect that.

Or it could simply have been said to save face in front of the others who were there (in case they survived) which included servants, Duncan, Uldred (who was already allied to Loghain, so he doesn't matter). Because we know Loghain had the whole regicide planned before the battle (Eamon was poisoned before-hand apparently), so why tell Cailan to stay back if Loghain wanted him to die anyway. It gets very mucky in terms of understanding.

[Asylumer]

fantasypisces wrote...

Cailan sort of strikes me as a man that could get cold feet. But by pressuring saying "stay out of the battle" he thinks one might be meaning he wouldn't be good, he wouldn't contribute, which plays on his heroic fantasies.

But if they were to not mention him fighting, before the battle he might have gotten cold-feet and said "maybe it is better if I hang back". I can totally see Cailan being like that. But that is simply how I view the character, you don't view it that way and I respect that.

And I got none of that from Cailen. From the very start it was obvious to me that Cailen was eager to prove himself a King, and later I concluded that he had felt somewhat emasculated by Anora. He wanted there to be a Blight. He wanted an Archdemon. Mostly, he wanted to prove himself as worthy of legend.

Remember, it was his idea to fight alongside the Wardens in the first place. If Loghain wanted Cailen out of the front lines, how do you propose he convince the King? Sarcastically referring to the chaos that would be caused with Cailen's death? Well, that's what I would do, but that's basically the same thing while also insulting the King's intelligence. That might tick the King off even more

[tallon1982]

Calian was living in the shadow Maric. It's sort of hard to live up to that and plus his adviser is Loghain the Hero of River Dane. Talk about being the little man.

[aerathnor]

Lets not forget that after the battle at Ostagar and army of wardens and Chevaliers shows up at Ferelden's doorstep saying they're here to stop the blight. I tend to think that much more of the "evil" things he did came from Arl Howe, he needed allies and Howe was there. I even think that Howe may have been going for a power grab himself, feeding Loghain's paranoia about Orlais and the wardens so that he could come up smelling like roses and take the throne for himself. Howe was nothing if not ambitious.



I like to think that there was a much deeper character in Loghain, the game already had enough bad guys who are bad for the sake of being bad. The whole Blight/darkspawn is enough of a generic enemy for the game, Loghain just happened to be doing what he thought was the best he could in a poor situation.



One more point, the wardens had already attempted to overthrow the King of Ferelden once in the past. This may have added to his paranoia about the wardens and Orlais being bed buddies.

[tallon1982]

I got the impression from Howe that he too has a hatred for the Orlesains. I can't recall what he says but it's when you confront him as a human noble he makes a comment about it. Then his tone in the origin story hints at it too.

[Ulicus]

I've stopped pursuing the dialog path that leads to Ser Donall telling my characters that Eamon fell sick before Ostagar. Maybe it's a leftover from an earlier version of the script, maybe it isn't... either way, since I can avoid that dialog (which complicates things) but I can't avoid Duncan's message from Eamon to Cailan, I'll go with the latter as being more accurate for now.

It'd be different had Duncan implied, "I spoke with Eamon months ago and he said that he might have troops here within a week from now", but he phrases it as: "If you sent word, now, Eamon could have his troops here within the week". It seems pretty speedy, but I imagine travel by horse along the Imperial Highway *is* pretty swift.

Also, I noticed for the first time today that Duncan tells you the Orlesian forces and Wardens are "many days" away from Ostagar. Cailan, presumably, knows this when he tells Loghain that they could "wait" for the Orlesians. As such, the blame for the battle is put even more firmly on his shoulders. If they could conceivably wait for the Orlesians - as Cailan suggests -  then they had plenty of time to wait for reinforcements from within Ferelden. At the very least, they could have waited for Eamon's army to show up. As much as I like the guy, it seems like Cailan only mentioned the Orlesians so as to goad Loghain into committing to a battle on that day, despite his objections. Hmm.

Though I recall that Gaider said Loghain was "moving against" (not sure if those were the exact words) Cailan prior to Ostagar, so that has to be taken into account. Whether "moving against" necessarily entails regicide is another matter entirely, however... especially if I've got the quote wrong.

[Asylumer]

tallon1982 wrote...

I got the impression from Howe that he too has a hatred for the Orlesains. I can't recall what he says but it's when you confront him as a human noble he makes a comment about it. Then his tone in the origin story hints at it too.

Hmm... I'm positive that Howe was in fact sided with the Orlesians at the start of the Rebellion. The scholar in the Human Noble Origin tells you such.

[tallon1982]

Howe was born during the occupation and joined with Bryce Cousland and the Arl of Southreach (well he wasn't the arl yet) and fought in the battle of white river. Howe's grandfather probably was the one that sided with Orlais.

[Ulicus]

Asylumer wrote...

tallon1982 wrote...

I got the impression from Howe that he too has a hatred for the Orlesains. I can't recall what he says but it's when you confront him as a human noble he makes a comment about it. Then his tone in the origin story hints at it too.

Hmm... I'm positive that Howe was in fact sided with the Orlesians at the start of the Rebellion. The scholar in the Human Noble Origin tells you such.

Howe's family does, while Bryce's father is Teyrn. You can blame Rendon for many things, but it's not his fault that his father or mother decided to go with Orlais. He, by all accounts, fought very bravely against Oralis and ended up getting rewarded by Maric for valour. Hell, by his own account he was friends with Maric. I think he believes it, too.

Which would make sense, since according to Aldous, Howe's family only had Harper's Ford at the time of the occupation... which suggests that Maric gave him the Arling of Amaranthine afterwards. (Which had belonged to a "young" Arl called Byron during the last days of the occupation, suggesting it wasn't in the Howes possession at that point)

Modifié par Ulicus, 09 janvier 2010 - 05:15 .

[melkathi]

Asylumer wrote...


However, if Loghain thought the Wardens betrayed the army at Ostagar by delaying the signal, that could fit together given his paranoia.

A few random thoughts about the signal:

Why did he wait for the signal to retreat?
If he could see from his position that the battle was lost and he had not planned his betrayal beforehand, then why retreat the moment you are told that your help is needed? That makes no sence.
Far more likely that he chooses to retreat at the signal, because the lighting of the fire proves that his "enemies" are unlikely to survive if he retreats now.

[Asylumer]

Ulicus wrote...

Howe's family does, while Bryce's father is Teyrn. You can blame Rendon for many things, but it's not his fault that his father or mother decided to go with Orlais. He, by all accounts, fought very bravely against Oralis and ended up getting rewarded by Maric for valour. Hell, by his own account he was friends with Maric. I think he believes it, too.

I checked and you are correct. My mistake.

melkathi wrote...

A few random thoughts about the signal:

Why did he wait for the signal to retreat?
If
he could see from his position that the battle was lost and he had not
planned his betrayal beforehand, then why retreat the moment you are
told that your help is needed? That makes no sence.

Why did he? If he planned to betray the king, why bother with the signal at all?

That part does make little sense from what we know, but it doesn't point in either direction. However, that is where he'd be forced to make a decision. His men were ready to go in, and it was time to make a call.

Far more
likely that he chooses to retreat at the signal, because the lighting
of the fire proves that his "enemies" are unlikely to survive if he
retreats now.

Erm... how would the signal change whether the king survives or not? It's not like Cailen's army had sight of Loghain to tell if he retreated or not, and they were in no position to run.

No, Cailen's army was doomed either way.

[tevikolady]

Strategically, Loghain's plan was sound. They had funneled the dark spawn into a valley that limited their numbers so that a smaller army (which they had) could defeat a much larger one (which the darkspawn had). Loghain himself came up with the plan to flank them, for 2 reasons.



1) had he actually attacked, it would have driven a wedge in the Darkspawn army, and they would have pinchered them in and won, albeit at a very very high cost in numbers.



2) Loghain would be in the back and be able to safely march away. . .



#2 is more likely to me, given that he did indeed flee teh battlefield, he had Arl Eamon poisoned, hated the Grey Wardens, enticed the Circle into a revolt. I'm also willing to bet that he promised Behlen support if the old king were to die. . .



Loghain is a dirty man, who doesn't deserve the honor of becoming a champion of Ferelden and a Hero to boot. He had his glory against Orlais, the man is a criminal.

[Ulicus]

I think the minute Loghain agreed to fight the battle, he knew he'd be leaving Cailan to die. However, I'm also convinced that he didn't want to fight the battle at all and was trying to convince Cailan to wait for (non Orlesian) reinforcements. Simply put, had the conversation gone like this:

Loghain: We need more men!
Cailan: Then perhaps we should send word to my uncle's forces. They can be here within the week.

Everything would have turned out a lot better. Well, assuming Loghain hadn't poisoned him beforehand.

Ultimately, there's every indication that Loghain thought the battle was unwinnable from the geto. As such, it's likely his "strategy" was always intended as a means to get as many people out of Ostagar as possible in the event of the King "forcing" them to fight a battle. Even then, he wanted to keep the King away from the deathzone if at all possible... but, when the King insists... well, the King insists.

Modifié par Ulicus, 09 janvier 2010 - 06:02 .

[Tantalus010]

There's another angle that may not have been pointed out here; I haven't read the entire thread. It could be the whole defeat at Ostagar was a mistake, and Loghain was simply embarrassed considering that he was a known military genius. He does genuinely seem to not want the king in the battle, so I'm not convinced that this was a premeditated plot to kill the king. It could be that when the signal came, Loghain realized it was too late and thus decided to retreat to face the threat later. His blaming the Grey Wardens for the defeat could be his pride trying to cover up his embarrassment that his strategy failed. He could have decided to name himself regent because he felt he needed to atone for his failure by uniting and saving Ferelden. As the situation deteriorated further, and things got further out of his control, his paranoia and disdain for Orlais flared up and he began to act increasingly irrationally. Obviously Howe was a bad influence on him; I wouldn't be surprised if everyone who said they were hired by Loghain were actually hired by Howe who was just "acting on Loghain's behalf". Howe clearly wanted more power and probably thought that if Loghain ascended to regent, and he became a close advisor to him, he could then remove Loghain at the right time and name himself regent. Just a thought. Of course, this could all be wrong, I've never spared Loghain so I've never spoken to him afterwards.

[Valoryn]

melkathi wrote...

A few random thoughts about the signal:

Why did he wait for the signal to retreat?
If he could see from his position that the battle was lost and he had not planned his betrayal beforehand, then why retreat the moment you are told that your help is needed? That makes no sence.
Far more likely that he chooses to retreat at the signal, because the lighting of the fire proves that his "enemies" are unlikely to survive if he retreats now.

As far as the signal goes, I see it like this; Loghain didnt intend for the beacon fire to be lit. He mentions having men in the tower, who conceivably allow the darkspawn access to the tower. He doesnt plan for Cailan sending the two Grey Wardens to light the signal fire.

Once the fire is lit his excuse for not joining the attack (signal fire not lit, and he didnt realize it wasnt going to be until too late) is gone, so he orders the retreat.

[JTBehnke]

Asylumer wrote...

When you realize Loghain didn't intentionally betray the King at Ostagar, Alistair's tantrum makes a lot more sense. If he forgave Loghain then he'd have to admit HE was partially responsible for Duncan's death.

That's something he couldn't do. He'd have failed Duncan. It doesn't matter that the Darkspawn were in the way, he'd force himself to take the burden of responsibility. We know this from his character -- what many would call whiny.

Everything falls into place if you accept that Loghain wasn't a traitor.

In contrast, 'big bad Loghain' comes together like a Beckian conspiracy. None of it makes sense without leaping for conjectures. So what, he was obsessed with protecting Ferelden but sacrificed the King along with a majority of the army, plunging Ferelden back into political instability which is further aggravated by the need for soldiers? That he'd encourage the King to stay in safety yet have a plot to kill him? The whole idea hinges on Loghain being a complete madman who's strategic genius evaporates and ignores the much more plausible explanation: Loghain isn't guilty (of regicide).

The game does a good job of leading the player on though. I can see where it pushes the player towards prejudice and makes Loghain betrayal "clear"... until you start looking at the evidence. Very evil Bioware. Very, very evil.

Technically speaking Loghain isn't guilty of the crime of regicide.  That crime was commited by the ogre who snapped Cailan's back.  Loghain didn't kill the king with his own hands.  He just left him in a dangerous situation.  That's not regicide, it's negligence.

[jon 45]

JTBehnke wrote...
Technically speaking Loghain isn't guilty of the crime of regicide.  That crime was commited by the ogre who snapped Cailan's back.  Loghain didn't kill the king with his own hands.  He just left him in a dangerous situation.  That's not regicide, it's negligence.

Even more technically it's probably treason.

I don't get this need by some people to absolve Loghain of guilt. He is a fairly complex character, but he is also clearly the bad guy. The whole story comes together nicely, apart from the obvious timeline issues, if you acknowledge that he has been plotting against Cailan since before Ostagar (which has been confirmed by David Gaider, btw).

[Asylumer]

jon 45 wrote...

I don't get this need by some people to absolve Loghain of guilt. He is a fairly complex character, but he is also clearly the bad guy. The whole story comes together nicely, apart from the obvious timeline issues, if you acknowledge that he has been plotting against Cailan since before Ostagar (which has been confirmed by David Gaider, btw).

*sigh* Here we go again with the disinformation. David Gaider said that it was obvious that Loghain had begun to act against the King and his wishes, not that he had some super-secret plot to kill Cailen.

And what I'm doing is not absolving Loghain of guilt, I'm giving him a freakin trial in the first place. Sadly the idea of innocent until proven guilty hasn't set into the minds of Loghain-haters yet.

...

No wait, I'm completely wrong. I finally understand! Here's a chart with PROOF of Loghain's guilt.

Thank you for showing me the light. Goodnight everybody!

[jon 45]

Asylumer wrote...


*sigh* Here we go again with the disinformation. David Gaider said that it was obvious that Loghain had begun to act against the King and his wishes, not that he had some super-secret plot to kill Cailen.

And what I'm doing is not absolving Loghain of guilt, I'm giving him a freakin trial in the first place. Sadly the idea of innocent until proven guilty hasn't set into the minds of Loghain-haters yet.

Is is really necessary to drag down the level of discussion by labelling people who disagree with you as "haters"?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal concept that has little use in the discussions of the fictional actions of a fictional character in a video game. Besides, Loghain is clearly guilty of quite a lot of things. "Acting against the king" is treason in a society like Ferelden, the penalty for which can reasonably be expected to be death. I.e. if you start "acting against the king" you better have a really good plan to dodge the punishment or you will end up quite dead.

As I said, the story makes a lot of sense if Loghain, the great strategist, has put in place an intricate plan to get rid of the king who has been making nice with the Orlesians, something Loghain strongly disapproves of. And in Loghain's mind, Loghain is always right. His supreme arrogance doesn't allow for the possibility that he might be wrong. That's how he has been able to justify a variety of morally questionable actions throughout his life. If it was possible for Loghain to be wrong, he suddenly would have to face the possibility that he might not be a very good person (something that ultimately happens in the course of the game).

Before the game starts, Loghain has seen the opportunity to get rid of the less and less tractable Cailan while on campaign and makes his preparations to seize power afterwards, not out of a desire to wield power, but for the best of the country (or at least so he tells himself). He orders the assassination of Eamon and conspires with Howe to get rid of the Couslands, making sure the two candidates who would be the most obvious choice to succeed Cailan at this point (since Cailan has no heir) are out of the way. He then sets up the battle at Ostagar in such a fashion that he can leave Cailan to die without it looking like treason, he can just claim that the signal was never given and hundreds (or thousands) of eye witnesses will confirm this.
This is the point where the PC enters the narrative. As the designated protagonist (and armed with a reload button), he or she manages to light the signal, forcing Loghain to either abandon his plan and facing execution after Cailan returns to Denerim and learns of his treachery, or leaving the king to die anyway and trying to seize power despite it being more obvious what he's done. He picks option "B" and tries to make the best of a bad situation, but ultimately loses out to the PC.

I think this narrative is a lot more compelling than what other people are trying to construct (apparently going as far as willfully ignoring in-game information because it doesn't fit with how they think the story should have gone). Do you really think that Howe just coincidentally murdering the guy who might have been king in Cailan's stead, and who clearly would have been one of the favourites to be confirmed as his successor by the Landsmeet, just when Loghain needed him dead makes for better storytelling?

[Apophis2412]

Asylumer wrote...

jon 45 wrote...

I don't get this need by some people to absolve Loghain of guilt. He is a fairly complex character, but he is also clearly the bad guy. The whole story comes together nicely, apart from the obvious timeline issues, if you acknowledge that he has been plotting against Cailan since before Ostagar (which has been confirmed by David Gaider, btw).

*sigh* Here we go again with the disinformation. David Gaider said that it was obvious that Loghain had begun to act against the King and his wishes, not that he had some super-secret plot to kill Cailen.

And what I'm doing is not absolving Loghain of guilt, I'm giving him a freakin trial in the first place. Sadly the idea of innocent until proven guilty hasn't set into the minds of Loghain-haters yet.

Does Ferelden even have a court system? Or can be people by executed by the nobles on a whim? Just look at Jowan for example?

Modifié par Apophis2412, 09 janvier 2010 - 08:44 .

[fanman72]

Guys,

Re-read pages 261-263 of the Stolen Throne. That explains a lot about his motivation to abandon Cailan. Also understand what impression he had of the Grey Wardens (many of whom were from Orlais) at the end of the "The Calling" when he found Maric.  

I don't believe Loghain was every power hungry.  If he was he could have been all supreme lord of Fereldan long ago.  Truth is he's been calling the shots for a long time - whether it be Maric, Rowan, Anora, or Cailan on the throne - all of whom took a subservient role to Loghain when it really came down to it.  Loghain was essentially Maric's "big brother".  When Cailan decided to do something outright stupid and defy Loghain's order and fight on the front lines, Loghain realized this boy could be a major liability.  Loghain is a control freak, not power hungry.  There's a major difference.  

Modifié par fanman72, 09 janvier 2010 - 09:06 .

[Apophis2412]

fanman72 wrote...

Guys,

Re-read pages 261-263 of the Stolen Throne. That explains a lot about his motivation to abandon Cailan. Also understand what impression he had of the Grey Wardens (many of whom were from Orlais) at the end of the "The Calling" when he found Maric

Are you talking about the prophecy?

[Aseya]

Asylumer wrote...


*sigh* Here we go again with the disinformation. David Gaider said that it was obvious that Loghain had begun to act against the King and his wishes, not that he had some super-secret plot to kill Cailen.

And what I'm doing is not absolving Loghain of guilt, I'm giving him a freakin trial in the first place. Sadly the idea of innocent until proven guilty hasn't set into the minds of Loghain-haters yet.

...

No wait, I'm completely wrong. I finally understand! Here's a chart with PROOF of Loghain's guilt.

Thank you for showing me the light. Goodnight everybody!

you didnt include slave selling in your chart

but seriouslypersonaly Im not even that concerned if Loghain planned the whole thing from the start or not. The fact that he DID everything just trying to ensure his word  would have the neccessary power behind it  is proof to me that his judgement is way out of hand. I understand why on personal level he did not want to aknowledge that this was the real blight ( Maric's prophecy etc) but as a strategist and some1 who claims to love his land to dismiss the possibility of something that alreayd happened 4 times - personaly I find it rather strange - after all Orlesians can have as many plots as they want but they sure as hell cant control the darkspwan

[fanman72]

Apophis2412 wrote...

fanman72 wrote...

Guys,

Re-read pages 261-263 of the Stolen Throne. That explains a lot about his motivation to abandon Cailan. Also understand what impression he had of the Grey Wardens (many of whom were from Orlais) at the end of the "The Calling" when he found Maric

Are you talking about the prophecy?

I'm talking about when Maric scolded both Loghain and Rowan for saving him because they were needed at West Hill instead.  Loghain had saved Maric about a dozen times by now; Maric told him to act in the best interest of Fereldan; not in the best interest of the King of Fereldan.  There's a difference.  Loghain obliged and basically told him "Okay next time I won't save you"


I think that extended to his son.

[Xandurpein]

I'm not sure, but I almost belive that the story is intentionally left unclear. I think it's obvious that Loghain is not satisfied with Cailen long before Ostagar and probably at least contemplates having him removed from power, one way or the other. To Loghain it is Cailen who is the traitor who wants to surrender Ferelden to Orlais. Add to this the prophecy about the Blight and Loghain's treason. Loghain cannot make himself believe that the Blight is real as that would make the prophecy true.



At the same time everyone agrees that Loghain is arguing a lot with Cailen before the Battle of Ostagar. If Loghain simply wanted to kill Cailen, why all the heated arguments with Cailen, when he got everything in place? Loghain do not want to belive in the prophecy and he don't want Cailen to act in a way that, in Loghain's mind, forces him to act against him. So he tries with every argument he can to turn Cailen away from believing in the Blight or seeking aid from Orlais, but as Anora says it "For once, my poor foolish husband wouldn't change his mind".



The whole plan for the Battle of Ostagar hinges on the lighting of the Beacon. I know enough military tactics to know that if you want to make a two-pronged attack like that against a superior enemy force, you do not want the "anvil" fight alone for too long, before the "hammer" strikes. The whole idea with the signal in the tower would logically to have Loghain's force strike form the side or rear, just as the front ranks of the Darkspawn horde reaches the King's line. Any delay after that simply means lots of dead in the "anvil" force for no gain. It is perfectly possible that when the beacon was lit, the Battle was already lost, because it was too late, but there is simply no way for us to know, based on evidence in game.



We get information that suggests that Loghain believed that it was to late, but also that he probably decieves himself with that, but there is no real proof one way or the other.



Personally I think that it is intentionally set up so that it will be possible for the player to read different things into what happens. Loghain had reasons to think that Cailen was a bad King, and we know he very probably was cheating on his wife, Loghain's daughter, but some of his reasons where false beliefs and paranoia.



To me elements in Loghain's history reminds me of Macbeth, he is a man driven to fulfill a prophecy against his will. I think Loghain is a very tragic figure, but also a dangerous, delusional man that has to be stopped. Whether you think it's fair to give him a chance to redeem himself or just want him dead is really up to everyone to decide for themselves.