346 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

MordantWastrel wrote...
I don't think that anyone would suggest that Loghain is 'innocent' or undeserving of some punishment. Even when you choose to redeem him, it's clear that the decision you're making is (ironically, like many of Loghain's decisions) 'for Ferelden' and not 'for Loghain.' It's also clear from the conversations you can have with Loghain post-redemption that he still has the capacity to be invaluable to Ferelden now that he's been humbled and is not in a position to simply have his will be done without question.

Like most stories of redemption, talking about whether or not Loghain is guilty is sort of beside the point. He's clearly guilty in fact, even if his motives were pure or understandable; I don't think that deciding to kill him requires an especially spirited moral defense.

Agreed, however I would say that the most spirited defenders of Loghain do not appear to think that he is deserving of some punishment. Every decision he makes in the game is defended as being in the best interests of Ferelden. I think he is misguided and paranoid about Orlais and almost every decision he makes in the game is a poor one and he deserves to be brought to account over them. Whether he should be made a GW on the grounds of his usefulness is a different question, speaking purely on a utilitarian basis of course he would be useful.

MordantWastrel wrote...
But if I'm the PC, and I know that I'm not going to rule Ferelden myself (or maybe even if I am), I'd rather have the likes of Anora and Loghain running things with a few checks on their power than Alistair, who, as much as he may be modeled on Buffy's Xander, never quite seems to 'grow up' in the same way that Xander does, even if Alistair has gone through the Joining and accepted his Gray Warden responsibility -- it seems like he embraces being a Gray Warden because it excuses him from having to deal with his fear or failing with respect to his responsibility as a Templar and as and heir to the throne.

I know thats how it comes across in the game but after reading the books Alistair is pretty much a clone of Maric who ended up being a good king.

Modifié par Morroian, 09 mars 2010 - 10:50 .

[Swifty]

Addai67 wrote...

From Loghain's position you see darkspawn below him. Not in front of him. Yes, he's going to charge from the side/rear... this is what flanking means. Now how, pray tell, given your own assessment of Loghain's vantage point, does he know that Cailan is dead?

I know what "flanking" means. Cailin is charging from the front. Loghain is going to charge from the back. He is obviously coming down from top of that valley at the back. It's easy to run down a hill into a valley--it's a great deal more difficult to get back up it while waving a weapon. If the go down that mountain there is no retreat.

How does he NOT know Cailin is dead? There's no runners in this battle? No flags? No way of sending information? He went blind and can't see it for himself from his position?

The change in the battle plan I refer to is to not wait for the beacon. If Loghain has a clear enough view of the field to know that the battle is a loss, then much earlier than that he has a clear enough view to know that he needs to charge or lose the field. Assuming, of course, that he wanted to win the field...

How many times do I have to repeat this? Loghain sees what's in front of him. That is not the entire battlefield. What he can see is that the darkspawn are overrunning their forces. He'd have to be a complete idiot NOT to see it. We see it in the cutscene. It's blatent, it's obvious. They're outnumbered by a huge amount. How much more obvious can the artists make it? He's not rushing in there without the other troops who need to see the beacon before they advance.

You can't save an idiot from himself. If Cailin had NOT gone into the front lines he would not be dead. Period. No amount of blaming that on Loghain changes the basic fact that the army was completely overrun and about to lose Ostagar. Loghain did not send Cailin out to fight. He actively discouraged it. Cailin did not listen. He wanted to play hero with the GW and that's much of the reason Loghain is so miffed with them.

The mage you encounter in the Tower of Ishal (only if you are not a PC mage, BTW) is obviously not with the main force of mages, but one assigned to Loghain's men who are guarding the tower. His appearance means nothing as regards the main force, and obviously he did not come from Loghain's position either or Loghain would know why the beacon is delayed.

The mage is not IN the Tower--he meets you on the edge of the bridge. Wynne out and out says the mages fled when Loghain confronts her that that is why he could not get to Cailin to save him from his own stupidity.  From there it's more than obvious the darkspawn have taken the tower without any mages being attached to the tower in any way, shape or form. And if you listened Loghain wanted his men to light the beacon because he trusted them. Now he has a dead king as far as he's concerned because Cailin countermanded those orders and sent two baby GWer's instead.

Where else would he put the squishy mages except above the battle? Do you think he, Cailin and Duncan are all dolts?

Do you throw your mages in the middle of the melee combat?

[Swifty]

I don't think that Loghain could have saved Cailan.  However, he could have helped secure a retreat for what was left of the king's army.  Instead he left those men to the darkspawn.

If the mages wouldn't blow a hole in the lines to save Cailin what makes you think they would have blown a hole in the lines to get some more of the army out safely? How many troops is Loghain going to sacrifice?

[nos_astra]

Swifty wrote...

I don't think that Loghain could have saved Cailan.  However, he could have helped secure a retreat for what was left of the king's army.  Instead he left those men to the darkspawn.

If the mages wouldn't blow a hole in the lines to save Cailin what makes you think they would have blown a hole in the lines to get some more of the army out safely? How many troops is Loghain going to sacrifice?

During the mage origin Duncan tells you how many mages they have at Ostagar. I believe it were seven.

Modifié par klarabella, 09 mars 2010 - 11:04 .

[nos_astra]

edit: Ooops.

Modifié par klarabella, 09 mars 2010 - 11:04 .

[Addai]

The mage is running out of the tower. You meet him at the approach to the tower, running out of it along with one of Loghain's men and bringing word that the tower is overrun- neither of them say anything about the main battle. He is game mechanics, pure and simple, not an indicator of what the main force of mages is doing. He provides a mage for a warrior or rogue PC's party- you don't see him at all if your PC is a mage.

Loghain's men were providing supper for an ogre while the Wardens are fighting their way to the top of the tower. The beacon would not have been lit at all but for the "baby" Grey Wardens.

There is no way Loghain can know that Cailan is dead. And once again, if he can be sure that the king's army is overwhelmed, why is he still waiting there for the beacon? You simply cannot know the things you are asserting as fact. It is pure supposition and nothing in the game supports it. Loghain never says that he saw Cailan die or got word that he was dead before retreating. And once again, there is Oswyn's word that one of Loghain's own men said they retreated before the darkspawn overwhelmed the field.

Modifié par Addai67, 09 mars 2010 - 11:11 .

[Swifty]

Morroian wrote...

MordantWastrel wrote...
I don't think that anyone would suggest that Loghain is 'innocent' or undeserving of some punishment. Even when you choose to redeem him, it's clear that the decision you're making is (ironically, like many of Loghain's decisions) 'for Ferelden' and not 'for Loghain.' It's also clear from the conversations you can have with Loghain post-redemption that he still has the capacity to be invaluable to Ferelden now that he's been humbled and is not in a position to simply have his will be done without question.

Like most stories of redemption, talking about whether or not Loghain is guilty is sort of beside the point. He's clearly guilty in fact, even if his motives were pure or understandable; I don't think that deciding to kill him requires an especially spirited moral defense.

Agreed, however I would say that the most spirited defenders of Loghain do not appear to think that he is deserving of some punishment. Every decision he makes in the game is defended as being in the best interests of Ferelden. I think he is misguided and paranoid about Orlais and almost every decision he makes in the game is a poor one and he deserves to be brought to account over them. Whether he should be made a GW on the grounds of his usefulness is a different question, speaking purely on a utilitarian basis of course he would be useful.

MordantWastrel wrote...
But if I'm the PC, and I know that I'm not going to rule Ferelden myself (or maybe even if I am), I'd rather have the likes of Anora and Loghain running things with a few checks on their power than Alistair, who, as much as he may be modeled on Buffy's Xander, never quite seems to 'grow up' in the same way that Xander does, even if Alistair has gone through the Joining and accepted his Gray Warden responsibility -- it seems like he embraces being a Gray Warden because it excuses him from having to deal with his fear or failing with respect to his responsibility as a Templar and as and heir to the throne.

I know thats how it comes across in the game but after reading the books Alistair is pretty much a clone of Maric who ended up being a good king.

Actually I saved Loghain with my Mage because I thought it better he should die than Alistair or I [a bit meta-gamey, I admit] and killing him on Alistair's behest was wasting a perfectly good death when I could use a general to help with the final battle. The OMG he'll be a hero if I do that arguement comes from Morrigan--another Morrigan manipulation and I find it simply ridiculous. Who cares what other people think after the man is dead?

Alistair's childish reaction truly stunned me. There's an old saying, "It's not the measure of a man who agrees with you that counts, it's the measure of the man who does not." In this, Loghain turns out to be the adult while Alistair acts like a bratty child, stomping his feet and pouting. At that point I lost every ounce of respect for Alistair. I have to say, Loghain put his back into it right away as if he was almost happy to be done with all the political popcornery and just get back to soldiering again.

Then I talked to Loghain and wondered if it was right to sacrifice this man who had done so much so I offered to US. Then he explained his position "It's harder to send someone to die that to do it yourself. If you send others, you have to live with it afterwards." and thought hey, anybody who thinks that deserves his chance at redemption. Plus he really did love Anora, she betrayed him in the place that hurt the most by publicly accusing him of knowing about Howe's kidnapping and saying her father would kill her [that broke his heart, just broke it] and he really did love Fereldon. So, I thought--let him have at it, let him give his little speech and jump the dragon to gain back his honour.  It was actually a very difficult decision to let him die after all that.

Alistair spends the entire rest of the game, moping. Uh hello? This is your father-in-law? Would you like your wife to hate you forever because you, or your best friend just offed her daddy? How can anyone be that thick?

Absolutely. If you redeem Loghain it's because it's in the best interests of the country not Loghain as a person. Killing him is nothing more than momentary satisfaction and vengence. Loghain knows that and comments on it. He knows everyone hates him. He doesn't expect anything else. At camp he sees that everyone hates him and he isn't bitter about it.

The fact he turns out to be the best written character in the game is just a bonus.

[Swifty]

Addai67 wrote...

The mage is running out of the tower. You meet him at the approach to the tower, running out of it along with one of Loghain's men and bringing word that the tower is overrun- neither of them say anything about the main battle. He is game mechanics, pure and simple, not an indicator of what the main force of mages is doing. He provides a mage for a warrior or rogue PC's party- you don't see him at all if your PC is a mage.

Loghain's men were providing supper for an ogre while the Wardens are fighting their way to the top of the tower. The beacon would not have been lit at all but for the "baby" Grey Wardens.

There is no way Loghain can know that Cailan is dead. And once again, if he can be sure that the king's army is overwhelmed, why is he still waiting there for the beacon? You simply cannot know the things you are asserting as fact. It is pure supposition and nothing in the game supports it. Loghain never says that he saw Cailan die or got word that he was dead before retreating. And once again, there is Oswyn's word that one of Loghain's own men said they retreated before the darkspawn overwhelmed the field.

Again that's 3rd hand information. We have Wynne's word and Loghain's that his position at Ostagar was indefensible. Yet you simply keep ignoring the obvious.

Wynne out and out says that saving Cailin was impossible and that she, as one of the mages was guilty of fleeing and leaving him and the other troops to die instead of breaking the lines to let Loghain's men through to save him. That's not even open for question. Why do you think Wynne is so eager to join the Warden? When you recruit Loghain you find out it's her guilt for abandoning them to die at Ostagar only after Loghain confronts her with it.

So, do you believe information from someone who has a vested interest in 3rd party information or those who were actually there? Including one of the most trustworthy pc's in the game, Wynne?

Oswyn's father is on Loghain's side. He says that himself, as does his father until you rescue him. So why would Loghain ruin that alliance over 3rd hand, unprovable information from a third party? It's likely a number of soldiers escaped from Ostagar yet we have no proof that Loghain was hunting any of them. Whatever was going on there with Howe, we do not know.

From the cutshots it is quite clear that Loghain's position may well be indefensible.

As for the "babies" that's not my position but I could understand why it might be Loghain's. He has no reason to not believe the GW didn't frag it up. He's being blamed for regicide when the king is a fool and he's been forced, for one of the few times in his life, likely, to retreat and leave his men behind to die.

[Addai]

Swifty wrote...
Again that's 3rd hand information. We have Wynne's word and Loghain's that his position at Ostagar was indefensible. Yet you simply keep ignoring the obvious.

Wynne out and out says that saving Cailin was impossible and that she, as one of the mages was guilty of fleeing and leaving him and the other troops to die instead of breaking the lines to let Loghain's men through to save him. That's not even open for question. Why do you think Wynne is so eager to join the Warden? When you recruit Loghain you find out it's her guilt for abandoning them to die at Ostagar only after Loghain confronts her with it.

I take it you are referring to the following party banter.  Are we supposed to take Loghain's pathetic attempts at rationalization for an accurate depiction of what happened at Ostagar?  That he can honestly equate 7 mages breaking off their attack- mages who were under the influence of his conspirator Uldred, incidentally- with his own actions both at and before Ostagar (to say nothing of after), shows how deeply entrenched in paranoia and self-justification he still is even after the Landsmeet.

• Loghain: You can stop scowling at me, madam.
• Wynne: Did I need your permission? I see.
• Loghain: Fine. I confess: It was entirely my idea that
  Uldred consort with demons. I had a dastardly scheme in which the utter
  destruction of Ferelden's best weapon would benefit me, personally.
• Loghain: Are you satisfied now?
• Wynne: Do you think your deal with Uldred was where you earned my contempt? I was at Ostagar. I witnessed Cailan's murder.
• Loghain: Such loyalty.
• Wynne: What is that supposed to mean?
• Loghain: Did you try to save him, then? My apologies.
• Wynne: I was fortunate to escape with my life!
• Loghain: So you didn't rush to your king's rescue? I see. Then both of us left the boy to die.
• Wynne: I was no general at the head of an army! I could never have reached him!
• Loghain: And I had no magic that could break those
  darkspawn ranks. But perhaps you think I ought to have tried,
  regardless. No doubt, the lives of mere soldiers are cheap in the eyes
  of the Circle.
• Wynne: And what of all the soldiers who died with their king? Their lives were worth nothing to you.
• Loghain: You think so, do you? I knew their names, mage, and where they came from. I knew their families.
• Loghain: I do not know how you mages determine the value of things, but they were my men. I know exactly how much I lost that day.

From the cutshots it is quite clear that Loghain's position may well be indefensible.

"May well" is not "certainly isn't," and that makes all the difference when evaluating the decision of a general to abandon his king and the king's army, scrap his own battle plan, and then march off to claim the throne leaving the south undefended against the horde.

As for the "babies" that's not my position but I could understand why it might be Loghain's. He has no reason to not believe the GW didn't frag it up. He's being blamed for regicide when the king is a fool and he's been forced, for one of the few times in his life, likely, to retreat and leave his men behind to die.

I agree on this, that he took the delay in lighting the beacon as a sign to go ahead with his plan to usurp Cailan's throne.  Gaider has said that he didn't make that final decision until he saw the beacon, but he certainly had laid all the foundation for what happened.  The attack on the tower merely offered him an excuse he could use to justify himself, an official story which, as it turns out, he also needed to use torture, murder and intimidation to enforce.

Modifié par Addai67, 10 mars 2010 - 01:09 .

[Swifty]

Addai67 wrote...

Swifty wrote...
Again that's 3rd hand information. We have Wynne's word and Loghain's that his position at Ostagar was indefensible. Yet you simply keep ignoring the obvious.

Wynne out and out says that saving Cailin was impossible and that she, as one of the mages was guilty of fleeing and leaving him and the other troops to die instead of breaking the lines to let Loghain's men through to save him. That's not even open for question. Why do you think Wynne is so eager to join the Warden? When you recruit Loghain you find out it's her guilt for abandoning them to die at Ostagar only after Loghain confronts her with it.

I take it you are referring to the following party banter.  Are we supposed to take Loghain's pathetic attempts at rationalization for an accurate depiction of what happened at Ostagar?  That he can honestly equate 7 mages breaking off their attack- mages who were under the influence of his conspirator Uldred, incidentally- with his own actions both at and before Ostagar (to say nothing of after), shows how deeply entrenched in paranoia and self-justification he still is even after the Landsmeet.

• Loghain: You can stop scowling at me, madam.
  
• Wynne: Did I need your permission? I see.
  
• Loghain: Fine. I confess: It was entirely my idea that
  Uldred consort with demons. I had a dastardly scheme in which the utter
  destruction of Ferelden's best weapon would benefit me, personally.
• He's not "justifying" he's making making logical sense here. There's a number of these points in the game where the crimes he's accused of, simply don't make sense including the idea that he somehow set Uldred up to become an abomination. He's a practical man--hardly about to shoot himself in the foot, here.  I also have explained why  Irving [much as I like the guy] is as much to blame as anyone for deliberate blindness due to the note on his desk.
• Loghain: Are you satisfied now?
  
• Wynne: Do you think your deal with Uldred was where you earned my contempt? I was at Ostagar. I witnessed Cailan's murder.
  
• Loghain: Such loyalty.
  
• Wynne: What is that supposed to mean?
  
• Loghain: Did you try to save him, then? My apologies.
  
• Wynne: I was fortunate to escape with my life!
  
• Loghain: So you didn't rush to your king's rescue? I see. Then both of us left the boy to die.
• At least he admits to his own errors.
• Wynne: I was no general at the head of an army! I could never have reached him!
  
• Loghain: And I had no magic that could break those
  darkspawn ranks. But perhaps you think I ought to have tried,
  regardless. No doubt, the lives of mere soldiers are cheap in the eyes
  of the Circle.
• This is the exact point I've been trying to say about how Logain views his troops. He doesn't waste men. He knows that most people see soldiers as cannon fodder and he certainly doesn't take that viewpoint. And if Wynne thought he could have won--she would have said so. Nowhere does she say that winning was possible.
• Wynne: And what of all the soldiers who died with their king? Their lives were worth nothing to you.
• Loghain: You think so, do you? I knew their names, mage, and where they came from. I knew their families.
• Loghain: I do not know how you mages determine the value of things, but they were my men. I know exactly how much I lost that day.

From the cutshots it is quite clear that Loghain's position may well be indefensible.

"May well" is not "certainly isn't," and that makes all the difference when evaluating the decision of a general to abandon his king and the king's army, scrap his own battle plan, and then march off to claim the throne leaving the south undefended against the horde.

[*]
[*]He didn't "march off to claim the throne". He didn't claim the throne at all. Where are you getting that idea?
[*]
As for the "babies" that's not my position but I could understand why it might be Loghain's. He has no reason to not believe the GW didn't frag it up. He's being blamed for regicide when the king is a fool and he's been forced, for one of the few times in his life, likely, to retreat and leave his men behind to die.

I agree on this, that he took the delay in lighting the beacon as a sign to go ahead with his plan to usurp Cailan's throne.  Gaider has said that he didn't make that final decision until he saw the beacon, but he certainly had laid all the foundation for what happened.  The attack on the tower merely offered him an excuse he could use to justify himself, an official story which, as it turns out, he also needed to use torture, murder and intimidation to enforce.

[*]
[*]Please find me Gaider's quote that stated Loghain had any pretensions to the throne.  A regent is not a King. There's certainly no strong facts in the game to support that assertion.
[*]
[*]If Loghain wanted the throne he could have simply taken it. Period. He had the power, he had the troops.  Loghain talks about why he did not.
[*]
[*]And Wynne is equally justifying her cowardice. Does that mean she's "evil" too?
[*]
[*]As I've said over and over--you can't pin everything on Loghain. The political situation is complex. The south is obvously unwinnable from a strategic viewpoint if Lothering is any indication. In fact, whoever the Bann there is--he flees before the refugees even leave. He pulls out his men leaving them defenseless. The Templar there tells you that. But oh--that's all Loghain's fault for not marching his troops off as Darkspawn fodder in an indefensible position to a place he may not even have reached in time--we simply don't know. That it's indefensible is obvious. No castles, turrets walls or archery towers. That is obvious.
[*]The whole point of Loghain is that he is an ardent nationalist no matter who has the throne--the throne he doesn't care about. What he is not--is a Royalist. It's not about whether the king lives--it's about whether the nation does in his eyes.
[*]And in that--I would agree with him.

[Addai]

Ok, the formatting is going crazy.

Re. Loghain taking the throne: He beat an immediate retreat to Denerim in order to take a riverside vacation? You are quibbling with terms, regent vs. king. He was in charge and only using Anora's name to assert his dubious authority.

Re. Lothering: The bann withdrew because he was following Loghain, as several in the town tell you.

I don't think Loghain is "evil." As I've said over and over, he's a tragic figure. But a tragic figure who in the end deserves a hangman's noose, not a warrior's death. If you want to compare him to Wynne, this discussion is absurd. Maybe you could compare him to Dog who obviously fled rather than save the king, too.

Modifié par Addai67, 10 mars 2010 - 02:11 .

[Swifty]

Addai67 wrote...

Ok, the formatting is going crazy.

Re. Loghain taking the throne: He beat an immediate retreat to Denerim in order to take a riverside vacation? You are quibbling with terms, regent vs. king. He was in charge and only using Anora's name to assert his dubious authority.

Re. Lothering: The bann withdrew because he was following Loghain, as several in the town tell you.

I don't think Loghain is "evil." As I've said over and over, he's a tragic figure. But a tragic figure who in the end deserves a hangman's noose, not a warrior's death. If you want to compare him to Wynne, this discussion is absurd. Maybe you could compare him to Dog who obviously fled rather than save the king, too.

I think it's the bullets. When I tried 'em it went all nuts too.

So why is the Bann following Loghain? Because that town, strategically speaking, is indefensible. Should they stay there and fight and die for nothing?

No, regent vs. king is NOT "quibbling"--it's a seriously important difference in feudal society. It means that if Anora remarries a Nobleman, that child can inherit the throne. If Loghain did not take the regency, how long would his daughter last on the throne? He knew about Alistair, the bastard child I'm assuming. Eamon certainly did and used Alistair as his pawn to stop Loghain.

If so, Loghain must have been aware that someone would dig Alistair up and his daughter would be facing death very soon. It's a fatherly and national thing to try to protect her since she is an experienced ruler. She ruled while Cailin played war games--that too is obviously stated ingame.

You pointed out Wynne's conversation I pointed out that they both justify their reasons for fleeing Ostagar. Her reason was to save her life--his justification was to save his troops. And still, Wynne never says that the battle was winnable. Ever. If I was justifying running from battle  I would at least say, "Live and fight another day" not "I was fleeing for MY life." Note that Loghain doesn't even bother with that justification--which I found interesting.

And if Anora was only a "figurehead" then there would be no reason whatsoever for Howe to kidnap her. Why would he kidnap someone with no power and risk Loghain's considerable wrath? Arl Howe the nobleman in fact--could have wound up with the throne through Anora or without her. He's a far bigger threat than Loghain the commoner.

What is a "warrior's death"? What does that mean in terms of what is best for the country itself and defeating the darkspawn threat? What's more important, who dies gruesomely for some abstract reason or using the best resources to fight the darkspawn and that includes the best general in the land?

[Addai]

You mean Eamon who was on his deathbed would assert the Grey Warden who barely got out of Ostagr alive and whom Loghain then sent an assassin after? Sure, Anora was in mortal danger, that's why Loghain rushed back to the palace while the darkspawn were still feeding...

Forget it, you're trying too hard. I can see why people would spare Loghain, even though it's not a possibility for my games even for roleplay reasons. But you obviously have a one-sided view and you're willing to make the most absurd twists of logic to support it.

Modifié par Addai67, 10 mars 2010 - 03:38 .

[Swifty]

I have a "one sided view", yet you are the one who admits that you won't spare Loghain even out of curiosity to see what happens?



How did you work that out?



And again--irrelevant that Alistair got out of Ostagar barely alive. So did the dog--it doesn't make him a qualified candidate for the throne.

[Addai]

Swifty wrote...

I have a "one sided view", yet you are the one who admits that you won't spare Loghain even out of curiosity to see what happens?

I can read what happens.  What I can't do is conceive of a PC who wants to fight beside that traitor or have him in her camp.  There are some things I just won't do in-game, not even out of curiosity.

And again--irrelevant that Alistair got out of Ostagar barely alive. So did the dog--it doesn't make him a qualified candidate for the throne.

It relates to the fact that you somehow think Anora's life was in danger from Alistair's existence such that Loghain had to beat his cowardly retreat back to Denerim before the darkspawn were even done feeding on his men.

Modifié par Addai67, 10 mars 2010 - 06:24 .

[Xandurpein]

I think we are sometimes discuss two different things here, and the debate may be helped if we bring this to light.



1. What did Loghain do. On the one hand he did some evil things and on the other hand there are some of circumstances that explains why he did some of those things.



2. What is a fitting punishment for what he did. This is really a different subject than the first. We all have different views on crime and punishment. We can disagree on what punishment we think Loghain deserve, even if we are in full agreement of what he did.



I for one really don't believe in punishment. I believe in stopping crime, and in an ideal world punishment is pointless unless it can prevent crime. To me it makes sense to allow Loghain to contribute to Ferelden by sacrificing himself once I am convinced that he will no longer be a problem. I have no real need for vengeance for it's own sake. This is a deeply personal opinion and I know others feel differently. Just try to differentiate between 1. and 2. when you explain your opinion.

[nos_astra]

Xandurpein wrote...
I for one really don't believe in punishment. I believe in stopping crime, and in an ideal world punishment is pointless unless it can prevent crime. To me it makes sense to allow Loghain to contribute to Ferelden by sacrificing himself once I am convinced that he will no longer be a problem. I have no real need for vengeance for it's own sake. This is a deeply personal opinion and I know others feel differently. Just try to differentiate between 1. and 2. when you explain your opinion.

That would be my opinion, too, but not necessarily my PC's. Killing people is a common punishment in Ferelden. People are sentenced to death for much less. Think of the hungry deserter at Ostagar who is left to die in a cage because they assume he was about to desert. Honestly, I don't see how someone living and breathing in Ferelden would have a problem killing Loghain if they believe he must be brought to justice. Of course making him a Grey Warden is a valid option and I could come up with some reasons why a PC would do so but that doesn't mean killing him isn't also a perfectly valid option.

Modifié par klarabella, 10 mars 2010 - 11:55 .

[Xandurpein]

klarabella wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...
I for one really don't believe in punishment. I believe in stopping crime, and in an ideal world punishment is pointless unless it can prevent crime. To me it makes sense to allow Loghain to contribute to Ferelden by sacrificing himself once I am convinced that he will no longer be a problem. I have no real need for vengeance for it's own sake. This is a deeply personal opinion and I know others feel differently. Just try to differentiate between 1. and 2. when you explain your opinion.

That would be my opinion, too, but not necessarily my PC's. Killing people is a common punishment in Ferelden. People are sentenced to death for much less. Think of the hungry deserter at Ostagar who is left to die in a cage because they assume he was about to desert. Honestly, I don't see how someone living and breathing in Ferelden would have a problem killing Loghain if they believe he must be brought to justice. Of course making him a Grey Warden is a valid option and I could come up with some reasons why a PC would do so but that doesn't mean killing him isn't also a perfectly valid option.

On the whole I agree with you. I admit that I have a hard time roleplaying a proper Medieval mindset in matters like this. I also think that even if, as it is hinted in the game, many in Fereldan would be relieved that the PC pardons Loghain, I have no doubt that it would be viewed as an act of unusual mercy by the nobles of Fereldan.
You and I have discussed this before of course, but the reason I used to rationalize my decision to let him live, no doubt influenced by my present day mindset, was that he yielded in a duel, and that made it very difficult for my Human Noble to actually kill him.

[Swifty]

Actually I find Loghain morally ambiguous in that sometimes he does the wrong things for the right reasons but Morrigan is not. She's purely driven by selfishness. Next playthrough I think I'll try to boot her out of party however I heard she won't leave. Most of the companions are morally ambiguous and there wouldn't even be a party [and they wouldn't be an interesting party] if we kicked out all the "baddies".



Depending on what sort of MC one is playing--Loghain can be a legitimate tactical and moral choice.



I think he's a very specific archetype and that makes players uncomfortable. He's the archetype of "what would you do to keep your country free from an outside invader?" archetype as well as the self made man archetype on whose coattails others ride until his abrasiveness is no longer politically convenient.



Loghain can be the biggest moral challenge in the game. If an MC believes that people deserve at least one last chance at redemption [particularly if they've been heroic in the past] it's hard to get past those personal feelings of being attacked and maligned by him all game to GW him.



Alistair is the archetype of the adorable but spoiled nobleman who inherits the throne. It's very deliberate arch typing. It's an archetype most people are far more comfortable with in an RPG. It's an archetype when taken to extreme becomes the landsmeet scene of hissy fitting if the MC agrees to Riordan's wishes and GW's Loghain.



I actually would have liked to see an option where it's not Loghain vs Alistair and that they come to some grudging agreement. [Now that would take a high persuade] Unfortunately the closest to that is having Alistair bail and keeping Loghain and at least they're both alive to fight darkspawn.

[Xandurpein]

Swifty wrote...

Actually I find Loghain morally ambiguous in that sometimes he does the wrong things for the right reasons but Morrigan is not. She's purely driven by selfishness. Next playthrough I think I'll try to boot her out of party however I heard she won't leave. Most of the companions are morally ambiguous and there wouldn't even be a party [and they wouldn't be an interesting party] if we kicked out all the "baddies".

Depending on what sort of MC one is playing--Loghain can be a legitimate tactical and moral choice.

I think he's a very specific archetype and that makes players uncomfortable. He's the archetype of "what would you do to keep your country free from an outside invader?" archetype as well as the self made man archetype on whose coattails others ride until his abrasiveness is no longer politically convenient.

Loghain can be the biggest moral challenge in the game. If an MC believes that people deserve at least one last chance at redemption [particularly if they've been heroic in the past] it's hard to get past those personal feelings of being attacked and maligned by him all game to GW him.

Alistair is the archetype of the adorable but spoiled nobleman who inherits the throne. It's very deliberate arch typing. It's an archetype most people are far more comfortable with in an RPG. It's an archetype when taken to extreme becomes the landsmeet scene of hissy fitting if the MC agrees to Riordan's wishes and GW's Loghain.

I actually would have liked to see an option where it's not Loghain vs Alistair and that they come to some grudging agreement. [Now that would take a high persuade] Unfortunately the closest to that is having Alistair bail and keeping Loghain and at least they're both alive to fight darkspawn.

Personally I think Alistair is the kind of arhetype hero I can easily identify with, while Loghain represents what I secretly fear I might turn into when trying to win.

[Swifty]

[quote]

[/quote]

On the whole I agree with you. I admit that I have a hard time roleplaying a proper Medieval mindset in matters like this. I also think that even if, as it is hinted in the game, many in Fereldan would be relieved that the PC pardons Loghain, I have no doubt that it would be viewed as an act of unusual mercy by the nobles of Fereldan.
You and I have discussed this before of course, but the reason I used to rationalize my decision to let him live, no doubt influenced by my present day mindset, was that he yielded in a duel, and that made it very difficult for my Human Noble to actually kill him.

[/quote]

It's not precisely true in medieval times that it was just "off with his head". That was true of commoners--not the ruling class. What puts Loghain at risk for execution is because he is a commoner and not noble-born. Banishment of nobles was common if they were politically strong.

Any King who started overly head-chopping nobles often wound up either murdered or in the midst of a well-financed rebellion. Examples of this would be Julius Caesar not executing Cicero for treachery which certainly would have cost him tons of Roman senate support,  Vlad Dracul not executing his brother Radu when he took back his throne, Queen Elizabeth I not executing Mary Queen of Scots until there was ample proof of treachery and Elizabeth could no longer appease the noble class, also her banishment of Essex rather than behead him, Mary the Bloody not executing Elizabeth her sister, Richard the Lionheart not executing his brother John and vice versa as they switched back and forth grabbing for power, Saladin not executing [memory loss] but allowing him to flee the country, the castle lock up of Elizabeth Batory even though she was a mass murderess, Henry II not executing Elinor of Aquitane even after she led at least three rebellions against the crown, Henry VIII banished a number of nobles rather than put his throne at risk.

Kingdoms don't last long if there isn't some cohesion amongst the noble class. Kings can be toppled. In medieval society the most hated men throughout history were generally the self-made men who came to power behind the throne such as Cardinal Richelieu, Rasputin, Cardinal Wolsey and numerous other examples rather than the ruler who did nothing to stop them.

So, if you're worrying about sparing an NPC because it's all about "off with his head" being the only medieval option, you can think it through awhile and decide if it's politically expedient because most rulers actually did have political considerations as to who they could viably execute and who they could not.

GWing Loghain to make sure the entire country, including his supporters, are behind you in the fight against the darkspawn threat can be considered the same politically expedient manoever.

[SurelyForth]

Personally I think Alistair is the kind of arhetype hero I can easily identify with, while Loghain represents what I secretly fear I might turn into when trying to win.

This. I actually have roleplayed Loghain's execution as being my PC's overreaction to that parallel that she knows exists between him and her (another spared him for similar reasons). If you kill Loghain, put Alistair on the throne and stick around to rule or advise, you've pretty much become Loghain 2.0. Fortunately, the darkspawn are a clear and obvious enemy.

And Alistair isn't spoiled at all. He takes 99% of the crap thrown at him with remarkable grace and, even when he does confront you on something, he can be quick to back down if you give him a good explanation. The Landsmeet is the only time he actually expects anything from the PC. And he only really expects Loghain's death. Even if he says he wants to be king, if you give Anora the throne, he's still pretty cool with that.

GWing Loghain to make sure the entire country, including his supporters, are behind you in the fight against the darkspawn threat can be considered the same politically expedient manoever.

Except you go into the Landsmeet having laid all this groundwork to prove to the nobles that Loghain is traitorous, untrustworthy and no longer the hero of old. Are those who were affected by his actions supposed to forget what he's done (the things your PC brought to light) just because you say so? The fact that there can be a small rebellion if you exile/execute Alistair to spare Loghain proves that things are hardly totally united beyond the Blight.

Modifié par SurelyForth, 10 mars 2010 - 01:21 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Swifty wrote...

Alistair is the archetype of the adorable but spoiled nobleman who inherits the throne. It's very deliberate arch typing. It's an archetype most people are far more comfortable with in an RPG. It's an archetype when taken to extreme becomes the landsmeet scene of hissy fitting if the MC agrees to Riordan's wishes and GW's Loghain.

I would have to disagree here. Alistair is almost the opposite of that. Have you even spoken to him? He was a bastard child that was raised like a servant, sleeping in the stables and kennels, told he'd never be king, then shipped off to the Chantry because he was inconvinient. The only reason he is being pressured to take the throne is because there are no other options, in Eamon's eyes. He is a useful pawn to Eamon, but hardly a "spoiled noble". He was raised as common as they come. He is more the archtype of the unwilling king that rises from obscurity, and the flawed hero who can be undone by his own failings.

I rather respected him more for getting pissed off at the Landsmeet for sparing Loghain. Even if it was inconvinient and made me lose him in the playthrough where I spared Loghain, and the ass-chewing he gave me after. Because in a way, he was absolutely right.

Loghain is a victim of his own legend, his own stubborn pride and ethical arrogance. To me, he is the archetype of the obsessive general who is so tunnel-visioned, he'd rather see the country annihilated than occupied. Even after beating sense into him, he still stubbornly says that knowing what he knows now, he would have still done things the same way.

[nos_astra]

SurelyForth wrote...

Personally I think Alistair is the kind of arhetype hero I can easily identify with, while Loghain represents what I secretly fear I might turn into when trying to win.

This. I actually have roleplayed Loghain's execution as being my PC's overreaction to that parallel that she knows exists between him and her (another spared him for similar reasons). If you kill Loghain, put Alistair on the throne and stick around to rule or advise, you've pretty much become Loghain 2.0. Fortunately, the darkspawn are a clear and obvious enemy.

THIS! That's exactly what I thought. Killing him is somehow the first step on the path Loghain went down to his doom.
And funny thing, my latest HNF is painfully aware of it - and still does it.

I love flawed characters. 

[Xandurpein]

Swifty wrote...

It's not precisely true in medieval times that it was just "off with his head". That was true of commoners--not the ruling class. What puts Loghain at risk for execution is because he is a commoner and not noble-born. Banishment of nobles was common if they were politically strong.

Any King who started overly head-chopping nobles often wound up either murdered or in the midst of a well-financed rebellion. Examples of this would be Julius Caesar not executing Cicero for treachery which certainly would have cost him tons of Roman senate support,  Vlad Dracul not executing his brother Radu when he took back his throne, Queen Elizabeth I not executing Mary Queen of Scots until there was ample proof of treachery and Elizabeth could no longer appease the noble class, also her banishment of Essex rather than behead him, Mary the Bloody not executing Elizabeth her sister, Richard the Lionheart not executing his brother John and vice versa as they switched back and forth grabbing for power, Saladin not executing [memory loss] but allowing him to flee the country, the castle lock up of Elizabeth Batory even though she was a mass murderess, Henry II not executing Elinor of Aquitane even after she led at least three rebellions against the crown, Henry VIII banished a number of nobles rather than put his throne at risk.

Kingdoms don't last long if there isn't some cohesion amongst the noble class. Kings can be toppled. In medieval society the most hated men throughout history were generally the self-made men who came to power behind the throne such as Cardinal Richelieu, Rasputin, Cardinal Wolsey and numerous other examples rather than the ruler who did nothing to stop them.

So, if you're worrying about sparing an NPC because it's all about "off with his head" being the only medieval option, you can think it through awhile and decide if it's politically expedient because most rulers actually did have political considerations as to who they could viably execute and who they could not.

GWing Loghain to make sure the entire country, including his supporters, are behind you in the fight against the darkspawn threat can be considered the same politically expedient manoever.

Good and well written post. Although I might want to point out that a lot of the examples you provide are of persons of royal blood. Any King had a particulare interest in not messing with the tradition of the sanctity of the royal blood. Bad preceedent... 
I agree that saving Loghain may well be viewed as an act of political expediency, it's just that it wasn't just that that passed through my mind when I made my choice.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 10 mars 2010 - 01:37 .