146 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarah1281]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

BHRamsay wrote...
Under a monarchy a bad king is still a king...a stupid king is still a king and Calian was neither bad nor was he stupid ... considering Calian couldn't get respect from his father-in-law, his wife or his uncle -- all of whom questioned him publicly and persistently, It is no wonder he was so eager to prove himself he placed himself in harm's way.

Under Feudalism a bad king gets exiled or killed and the council picks a new king... And Cailan certainly wasn't a good king. A good man perhaps, but not a good king.

He was doing fine, though, because he knew what he was good at and let Anora do what she was good at and we know she was a decent Queen, even if she didn't care about the elves.

[BHRamsay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

BHRamsay wrote...
Under a monarchy a bad king is still a king...a stupid king is still a king and Calian was neither bad nor was he stupid ... considering Calian couldn't get respect from his father-in-law, his wife or his uncle -- all of whom questioned him publicly and persistently, It is no wonder he was so eager to prove himself he placed himself in harm's way.

Under Feudalism a bad king gets exiled or killed and the council picks a new king... And Cailan certainly wasn't a good king. A good man perhaps, but not a good king.

To undermine Calian's authority mere hours before the battle speaks to his disloyalty
To undermine his daughter's authority speaks to his arrogance.
To supprt Howe's trechery against citizens of Feleden and Lords of the realm speaks to his unreliabity
and to falsly accuse others while covering up his own misdeeds speaks to his dishonour.

as for Calian --- May The Bard Forgive my paraphrasing --- Loghain hath said that Calian was ambitious and if so twas a grevious fault and greviously did Cailan answer for it here under Loghain and the rest.

[zchen]

I'm firmly in the Calian is a much deeper man than what he lets on camp. Solely due to the documents found in RtO. Consider that this man managed to secretly negotiate an alliance with the Orlesian empire, has enough resolve to refuse Arl Eamon when Eamon urged him to dump Anora because she may be barren.

In my mind Calian was definitely trying to wrestle power away from Loghain, and rightfully so(bad things happen when a general/lord welds more influence and power than the King...)

Unfortunately for him, he didn't realize Loghain just abandoned him out right.

Some one above said RTO shows the plan would not have worked, I seriously don't see that. We know the Arch Demon was not going to show up until months later, so there would not have been a endless force of Darkspawn for that battle. If they win at Ostager, Calian would have gained enough recognition, he probably would have gather enough support to pressure Loghain into relenting and getting the Orlesian forces into Ferelden, and who knows what happen then. But Ferelden certainly will be in better condition than the end of DAO.

And if Calian is as dumb as some think he is, was it not the fault of Loghain? As the chief minister, was it not his responsibility to educate the young prince? I think he intentionally failed at this so he would control Ferelden easier. Marrying his daughter to the king serves this purpose as well (shades of Caocao during the three kingdom period in China here)

Loghain let his hatred of Orle and thirst for control cloud his judgment, he failed to protect the very country he liberated from the threat at hand, left the son of his friend/the husband to his daughter to die, plunged the kingdom to civil war.

For the one that said two wrong don't make a right and would have spared Howe even though he orchestrated the slaughtering of your family, allow me to quote Confucius

或曰：「以德报怨，何如？」
子曰：「何以报德？以直报怨，以德报德。」
Some one said, "What do you say concerning the principle that injury should be recompensed with kindness?"
The Master said, "With what then will you recompense kindness?" Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness.".

This represent my feelings with regarding to Howe(as human noble), Bhelen (as Dwarf Noble), and Loghain (every background)

Modifié par zchen, 15 avril 2010 - 04:14 .

[Valdur Han Atar]

zapkeet wrote...

this is directed to the second post:

How is it not that simple? What other reasons are there to kill him other than revenge?

sure he did some bad stuff, but is killing him going to bring back duncan (who was also a murderer and an all around bad person)? Is it going to prevent Eamon from ever getting poisoned? Is it ever going to prevent what happened at the circle of Magi? No to all of those

So why kill him?

Because if he lives he will still be a threat to the kingdom and a ticking bomb within the Grey Wardens.Will you trust someone who betrayed his King,The Grey Wardens and imprisoned his own daughter?

[Raiil]

BHRamsay wrote...


To undermine Calian's authority mere hours before the battle speaks to his disloyalty
To undermine his daughter's authority speaks to his arrogance.
To supprt Howe's trechery against citizens of Feleden and Lords of the realm speaks to his unreliabity
and to falsly accuse others while covering up his own misdeeds speaks to his dishonour. .

I think that's the best summation I've seen thus far.

[Sarah1281]

Some one said, "What do you say concerning the principle that injury should be recompensed with kindness?"

The Master said, "With what then will you recompense kindness?" Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness.".





This represent my feelings with regarding to Howe(as human noble), Bhelen (as Dwarf Noble), and Loghain (every background)

That's not really a fair comparison when it comes to Bhelen as there is a lot of evidence even without the epilogue he is better for the dwarves as a whole.

[zchen]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Some one said, "What do you say concerning the principle that injury should be recompensed with kindness?"
The Master said, "With what then will you recompense kindness?" Recompense injury with justice, and recompense kindness with kindness.".


This represent my feelings with regarding to Howe(as human noble), Bhelen (as Dwarf Noble), and Loghain (every background)

That's not really a fair comparison when it comes to Bhelen as there is a lot of evidence even without the epilogue he is better for the dwarves as a whole.

He may end up being a benevelent tyrant, but He still orchestrated the death of my older brother, my own exile(and death if not for the grey wardens) and humiliation, and indirectly caused the death of my father. The people you talk to in Orzammer at the time isn't unanimous in their support of him, I would argue the game at that moment doesn't really give you enough evidence that he is some how the better man if elected. What he demostrated up to that point is that he is a manipulative politician, but not as an able ruler.

To me saying that Bhelen should be spared based on future actions is just like arguing Loghain should be spared based on his past actions (or that he may be useful to be made into a grey warden )

Modifié par zchen, 15 avril 2010 - 05:42 .

[Sarah1281]

Basing your decision on what happened with Trian and the DN (Endrin was perhaps the only one in Orzammar who could have stopped the exile but chose not to for the sake of appearances and then he couldn't even go through with making Bhelen king) is putting your desire for vengeance over doing what's best for Orzammar.



You can see that Bhelen is a stronger ruler right from the start when his supporters kill a man for not speaking respectfully enough to Bhelen while all of Harrowmont's run away, Harrowmont's supporters Vartag has you win back are being bribed while the supporters Dulin wants to fight the Proving have to be talked into supporting him, and Bhelen outright promises you troops while Harrowmont says he'll put the matter to the Assembly.



If you do play as a DN you should know where the candidates stand on several issues and what Harrowmont's tradition and Bhelen having an casteless mistress point to for the casteless. Bhelen is, by all accounts, a horrible person but the fact remains that he wants power and a strong Orzammar will give him that. Orzammar has been dying a slow death ever since the First Blight and even faster since the Anvil was lost. Dwarven politics contain no Paragons and just because his schemes screwed you over personally doesn't really mean he can't rule well. The fact he pulled off his coup shows he's a lot smarter than anyon gave him credit for and that he can get things done while Harrowmont's claim to fame is compromise and granting concessions. That goes just about as well as it sounds like it would.

[Raiil]

1. Having lackeys who kill people for speaking out against you is not a sign of strength, but of tyranny. Despots do that sort of thing, not enlightened rulers.



2. They're not being bribed, they're being blackmailed or flat out lied to by Bhelen's supporters.



3. All politicians make those sorts of promises. Bhelen's word is not strong enough on its own. Harrowmount's actually doing the responsible thing- making it public. Game mechanics dictate that you get your followers. While I believe Bhelen would stay true to his word regardless, all he's doing is making an empty promise at that point to entice you. You- and he- have no way of backing up his claim. You can only take him at his word and hope he's telling the truth.

[zchen]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Basing your decision on what happened with Trian and the DN (Endrin was perhaps the only one in Orzammar who could have stopped the exile but chose not to for the sake of appearances and then he couldn't even go through with making Bhelen king) is putting your desire for vengeance over doing what's best for Orzammar.

You can see that Bhelen is a stronger ruler right from the start when his supporters kill a man for not speaking respectfully enough to Bhelen while all of Harrowmont's run away, Harrowmont's supporters Vartag has you win back are being bribed while the supporters Dulin wants to fight the Proving have to be talked into supporting him, and Bhelen outright promises you troops while Harrowmont says he'll put the matter to the Assembly.

If you do play as a DN you should know where the candidates stand on several issues and what Harrowmont's tradition and Bhelen having an casteless mistress point to for the casteless. Bhelen is, by all accounts, a horrible person but the fact remains that he wants power and a strong Orzammar will give him that. Orzammar has been dying a slow death ever since the First Blight and even faster since the Anvil was lost. Dwarven politics contain no Paragons and just because his schemes screwed you over personally doesn't really mean he can't rule well. The fact he pulled off his coup shows he's a lot smarter than anyon gave him credit for and that he can get things done while Harrowmont's claim to fame is compromise and granting concessions. That goes just about as well as it sounds like it would.

No, showing that his supporters are more willing to kill is just demostrating he's more ruthless and prone to violence. Showing that he wants to lift up the castless doesn't mean he showed he can harness their abilities. Again, all of what he done showed that he is more ruthless and plays the darker side of the political game well (blackmailing Harrowmount's fighters, not bribing them btw), but not necessarily demostrating true ruling skills. Sure he can promise you troops, but in the end it is what you do (showing the council the crown made by Caridin or Branka) that is instrumental in getting the dwarven support, not anything he actually does.

There's also the option that has Harrowmount appointing you to be the next King, and who's to say you won't do better?

This arguement is just the same as saying killing Loghain is putting one's desire for vengeance ahead of the need of another capable grey warden to fight the blight, is it not?

Modifié par zchen, 15 avril 2010 - 06:10 .

[Sarah1281]

Valentia X wrote...

1. Having lackeys who kill people for speaking out against you is not a sign of strength, but of tyranny. Despots do that sort of thing, not enlightened rulers.

2. They're not being bribed, they're being blackmailed or flat out lied to by Bhelen's supporters.

3. All politicians make those sorts of promises. Bhelen's word is not strong enough on its own. Harrowmount's actually doing the responsible thing- making it public. Game mechanics dictate that you get your followers. While I believe Bhelen would stay true to his word regardless, all he's doing is making an empty promise at that point to entice you. You- and he- have no way of backing up his claim. You can only take him at his word and hope he's telling the truth.

1) Also points to Harrowmont being weak and weak rulers don't get things done, especially in dwarven politics.

2) That's what I meant. Dulin's men in the Proving had to be talked into fighting fighting for him for whatever reason while HouseHelmi and House Dace were being bribed to side with Harrowmont, which was kind of weird because Lord Helmi wanted Harrowmont to win anyway and the Daces were clearly sick of Aeducan rule.

3) It's not just that he made the promise. The whole reason you have to get involved in he succession at all is because only the King is obligated to send troops. Harrowmont doen't need to put it before the Assembly but he seems to think being King is more of a tie-breaker and a figurehead than the actual leadership position that it is and acts accordingly. As Bhelen will want to make Orzammar stronger if only to increase his power, make sure the surface don't think they're weak enough to invade (and the Chantry does start taking about an exalted march if you help Burkel OR Dagna), and to stop the darkspawn from killing them all and has shown himself capable of getting things done, I don't see why he would be bad for Orzammar. Bad for his political enemies, certainly, and Bhelen's followers (those that don't rebel and get themselves killed) would be far luckier but politics is politics and they all knew what they were getting into.  

[Raiil]

1. That... doesn't point out any weakness. It's one dwarven dude killing another dwarven dude. Harrowmount's not standing there, presiding over the thing.



2. They didn't have to be 'talked' into anything, they had to be reassured that they weren't a) going to be blackmailed and potentially hurt a woman they loved and that the people they were championing still had a hat in the ring. One is being pressured, the other was being lied to. Those are not points in Bhelen's favour. Additionally, Harrowmount was willing to put his promises into writing- something Bhelen never bothers doing when promising the Warden support troops.



3. In theory, the King has absolute power. In reality, like in most countries that don't suffer under a dictatorship, no one has unlimited power. A system of checks and balances works for the majority of the populace. No where did Harrowmount say that his final word would rest on what the Assembly says, but waving your hand and declaring troops without announcing it first is bad form.

[Sarah1281]

No, showing that his supporters are more willing to kill is just demostrating he's more ruthless and prone to violence. Showing that he wants to lift up the castless doesn't mean he showed he can harness their abilities. Again, all of what he done showed that he is more ruthless and plays the darker side of the political game well , but not necessarily demostrating true ruling skills.



There's also the option that has Harrowmount appointing you to be the next King, and who's to say you won't do better?



This arguement is just the same as saying killing Loghain is putting one's desire for vengeance ahead of the need of another capable grey warden to fight the blight, is it not?

The guard-killing and subsequent Harrowmon retreat show that Bhelen's supporters are more loyal and dedicated which implies he is a stronger/more charismatic candidate. We don't see that he's particularly inclined to lift up the casteless, just that he doesn't automatically write them off and he's ruthessly pragmatic enough to use them as a resource (which he does by throwing them at darkspawn to reclaim territory).



If you can't play the political game well you won't get much done and while Harrowmont is excellent at compromsing, when it comes to being decisive he never shows any skill. I know the DN can succeed him and that's one of the reasons I'm currently leaning towards choosing him for my DN but that really is being selfish and impractical as you have no reason to believe you'll be allowed to even come back as a non-Warden and your entire ex-House hates you anyway so they won't willing reinstate you, which caused a lot of your problems when you returned.



I don't see how saying that killing Bhelen for getting you exiled (and he doesn't even have to kill Trian, the DN could) is like killing Loghain for leaving the King and his army to die, endangering the country during a Blight by outlawing GW and fighing a civil war, being well past the point of reason when it comes to the subject of Orlais - and I'm well aware he has his reasons - and the GW, having no reason to think he'll see reason and work with you once he's a GW, ect.

[Raiil]

It doesn't demonstrate that they're more loyal. It demonstrates they're willing to kill someone over what is essentially a political discussion. If I pistol-whipped someone for disagreeing over who should be POTUS, people would think I'm insane. I, for one, would not think highly of a candidate who condones their followers committing murder because someone had a different opinion. Would you trust that person to not bring harm on your family simply because you didn't agree with a policy?





Is it the same thing? No. And for what it's worth, I actually think Bhelen is better in the long run in most aspects. But the fact that they're willing to spill blood without regret or compassion- and a lot of that blood is innocent- speaks volumes to what they do have in common. The only difference is that Bhelen is looking to the future whilst Loghain remains mired in the past.

[Sarah1281]

Valentia X wrote...

1. That... doesn't point out any weakness. It's one dwarven dude killing another dwarven dude. Harrowmount's not standing there, presiding over the thing.

2. They didn't have to be 'talked' into anything, they had to be reassured that they weren't a) going to be blackmailed and potentially hurt a woman they loved and that the people they were championing still had a hat in the ring. One is being pressured, the other was being lied to. Those are not points in Bhelen's favour. Additionally, Harrowmount was willing to put his promises into writing- something Bhelen never bothers doing when promising the Warden support troops.

3. In theory, the King has absolute power. In reality, like in most countries that don't suffer under a dictatorship, no one has unlimited power. A system of checks and balances works for the majority of the populace. Nowhere did Harrowmount say that his final word would rest on what the Assembly says, but waving your hand and declaring troops without announcing it first is bad form.

1) One of Bhelen's supporters kills one man and all of Harrowmont's supporers run away. That kind of says something about how far his supporters are willing to go for him, huh?

2) I really have no sympathy for Baizyl. If he's going to go around having a clandestine affair with a married woman and the discovery of such affair will kill him and leave her destitute (a bad idea in the first place) then don't send love letters and if you do destroy them personally and don't just leave them laying around for Bhelen's men to find! And he doesn't even say anything about stopping the affair once it's obvious his secret isn't safe. And he chooses to let himself be blackmailed rather that support his candidate. The other guy couldn't even be bothered asking Harrowmont or Dulin if the rumor was true and given how important he was at the Proving, he could probably get an audience with at least one. Does Harrowmont put his promise in writing? I don't remember that.

3. The King is in charge of sendng troops, though. That's one of their powers even if the individual Houses have to provide them (and Bhelen sends most of Harrowmont's supporters to fight anyway and you know they didn't go willingly) while Harrowmont won't even commit to aiding you and then seeing what troops the Houses will supply. Besides, it's not like you're just asking for help out of the blue and one of them deigns to help you: they are honor-bound to keep the terms of the treaty and if nothing else they have to appear honorable.

[Raiil]

1. Alternatively, one of Bhelen's supporters kills a person in cold blood and the rest are running because who the hell wants to meet the business end of the axe? That says nothing about a person's willingness to stand up for the candidate, and everything about a smidge of common sense. Are you going to stick around when someone is clearly unbalanced enough to kill over a difference in opinion? It's murder.





2. Uh, no one chooses to be blackmailed; by the nature of the act it's thrust upon them. He can be blackmailed and still stand up for Harrowmount, but chooses to protect the woman he loves. How horrible is he? As for the other, we can't know if either Harrowmount or Dulin is avaliable for questioning, so how he came to his final conclusion is unclear. As for the promise I'm referring to, it's the promise of land/what have you, which is included in the Shaper's Memories, meaning it's recorded for posterity. You can check against it.





3. And it would be extremely bad form for the King to just say 'Yup, I'm going to give you men even if I can't guarentee it's going to be worth anything, since I don't actually have command of the entire army and I need to speak to those who do first.' Better to be cautious and realistic than to throw caution to the wind and pretend you have the ability- set in stone, as it were- to summon an entire Dwarven army, or even just a regiment or hell, a company, when you don't because you don't actually control any numbers other than your own.

[Sarah1281]

Valentia X wrote...

It doesn't demonstrate that they're more loyal. It demonstrates they're willing to kill someone over what is essentially a political discussion. If I pistol-whipped someone for disagreeing over who should be POTUS, people would think I'm insane. I, for one, would not think highly of a candidate who condones their followers committing murder because someone had a different opinion. Would you trust that person to not bring harm on your family simply because you didn't agree with a policy?


Is it the same thing? No. And for what it's worth, I actually think Bhelen is better in the long run in most aspects. But the fact that they're willing to spill blood without regret or compassion- and a lot of that blood is innocent- speaks volumes to what they do have in common. The only difference is that Bhelen is looking to the future whilst Loghain remains mired in the past.

This is Orzammar, though. These things are not only well-known in Orzammar but they have a reputation outside of it (Leliana even remarks she almost expected to see blood in the streets). In the DN Origin alone you can have either the scholar or minor noble put to death, kill the weapon merchant, and kill the heir to House Dace. Does anyone care? No. It's not nice, certainly, but it's how their society works. Is it the best system? Maybe not but it is the system they both are a part of.  Of course I wouldn't trust Bhelen not to harm families of political enemies (the main reason he doesn't get the Anvil) and people in the Assembly will even tell you that Bhelen threatened their families if they don't 'behave' although I'm not sure how telling you about that counts. That is just a risk taken in dwarven politics and a lot of the opposition to him is because people know Endrin didn't want him to rule and because the other Houses finally see a chance to put  new House on the throne after nine generations. They don't think he'll be a strong ruler or last long and so then the throne will be open for, say, a Helmi or a Dace.

Saying 'Bhelen and Loghain are both willing to kill people so they have a ton in common' isn't very specific or very accurate, in my opinion. No one in dwarven politics is innocent or they don't make it high enough to matter. As a DN, you dont even officially become a Commander before Lord Dace tries to trick you into screwing over your House for - maybe - 100 Sovereign, which you can only get 25 for once you sell it. If you had fallen for it and not gotten exiled, well that wouldn't have been a very promising start, would it? 

That Bhelen is looking towards the future and reality while Loghain is, to paraphrase Wulf, wiling to sacifice the entire country out of fear of Orlais is a huge difference. Chasing after maybe enemies when you have real ones ravaging your country makes you dangerously delusional while Bhelen actually seemed more anti-darkspawn than my Warden if his 'fulcrum of true evil' speech was anything to go by. Not for moral reasons, certainly, but the darkspawn are threatening his power so you can bet he's going to do something about them.

[Sarah1281]

[quote]Valentia X wrote...

1. Alternatively, one of Bhelen's supporters kills a person in cold blood and the rest are running because who the hell wants to meet the business end of the axe? That says nothing about a person's willingness to stand up for the candidate, and everything about a smidge of common sense. Are you going to stick around when someone is clearly unbalanced enough to kill over a difference in opinion? It's murder. [/quote] It's Orzammar and he wasn't a noble. You can murder-knife a scout who accuses you of fratricide and nobody cares as he's a lower caste. This isn't even a distinguished warrior but just some random guard. Presumably they're all armed (these are peope who often have chainmail in their gowns in case a fight breaks out) and while people do express their outrage that things have gotten this bad, no one seems surprised that it happened so why run? It just shows weakness.


[quote] 2. Uh, no one chooses to be blackmailed; by the nature of the act it's thrust upon them. He can be blackmailed and still stand up for Harrowmount, but chooses to protect the woman he loves. How horrible is he? As for the other, we can't know if either Harrowmount or Dulin is avaliable for questioning, so how he came to his final conclusion is unclear. As for the promise I'm referring to, it's the promise of land/what have you, which is included in the Shaper's Memories, meaning it's recorded for posterity. You can check against it. [/quote] Of course Dulin is available for questioning! It's his job to be available when Harrowont isn't, especially given how important the Proving is supposed to be and how important he was to Harrowmont's side.

Baizyl was having an affair and is scared her husband will find out and they will have to face the consequences of their actions. Oh, what a Paragon. He made some stupid choices and is now willing to let Bhelen hold it over his head forever rather than, say, taking the initiative and stealing the letters back himself. Can't pick a lock himself? Find someone who can.

And I still know what promise you mean. He promises you what exactly? Certainly not troops and he's run out of land to give since he promises the Helmis and the Daces the same thing.

3. And it would be extremely bad form for the King to just say 'Yup, I'm going to give you men even if I can't guarentee it's going to be worth anything, since I don't actually have command of the entire army and I need to speak to those who do first.' Better to be cautious and realistic than to throw caution to the wind and pretend you have the ability- set in stone, as it were- to summon an entire Dwarven army, or even just a regiment or hell, a company, when you don't because you don't actually control any numbers other than your own. [/quote] Except we've been shown that they choose their own generals. Bhelen has his generals and Harrowmont puts his two Proving fighters in charge if you go back and talk to them after Harrowmont becomes King. Why are you so certain the King can't provide troops? The King of Ferelden can without asking anyone's permission and the rulers of other nations can, why would the dwarves be different? They just can't promise you anything as they aren't King and until they are they can't do anything (and Bhelen's promise is conditional on becoming King first anyway).

[Raiil]

The king can provide troops. A single soldier is a troop. Whether those troops- numerically speaking- is worth the Warden getting involved is an entirely different matter. If my Amell showed up and found out that Bhelen may, at best, be only to provide part of his personal military, she probably would have turned right around and told Eamon to make do with the elves and the mages. It's shown that the King cannot order, pell-mell, all the houses in Orzammar to shove some of their military strength out the door since some hold back. Bhelen does not have unparalled power as King- until he pulls his tyranny out later and disperses the Assembly, there is still reliance on the deshyrs for military support.



Also, it's stated several times in the game that the banns hold a metric **** ton of power in Ferelden. Again with the balance- the King may rule but he does so with the support of the bannorn. The King does not just take what soldiers he needs. Eamon sends his men- Alistair or Anora do not command him to do anything.

[Sarah1281]

Sure he can. Bhelen has the support of half of the Assembly and the other half are terrified of him once he takes power. We only hear of one House holding out and they don't have a right to say no, they're just stalling and you can bet it WILL be dealt with after he Blight.



And in the HN origin if you ask Bryce why he's sending troops to Ostagar when it's a bad idea then he says they can't just refuse the King's order and most nobles do send troops but Cailan didn't want Eamon's ment there. For all we know, Alistair/Anora do order Eamon to supply troops but all things considered, they really don't have to. The King needs to make sure that the bannorn isn't pissed enough to have a civil war but other than that they only times they are really important are when a Landsmeet is called to decide on succession and other important events like perhaps going to war against another country. Dealing with a Blight (especially if they had a treaty in place demanding they do so) does not qualify as something the Landsmeet needs to be called for.

[Costin_Razvan]

I am not going to be dragged down into yet ANOTHER Loghain debtate.



However I will just give some food for thought Sarah. You said the Wardens don't answer to Celene, and yet the wardens only send a dozen of their numbers to Fereldan after the Blight, because she is mad at what Loghain did during the Blight.



How is that not having the wardens under her thumb?

[BHRamsay]

Valentia X wrote...

BHRamsay wrote...


To undermine Calian's authority mere hours before the battle speaks to his disloyalty
To undermine his daughter's authority speaks to his arrogance.
To supprt Howe's trechery against citizens of Feleden and Lords of the realm speaks to his unreliabity
and to falsly accuse others while covering up his own misdeeds speaks to his dishonour. .

thank you -- i've been holding that rant in since release day and I saw the first pro-Loghain thread

I think that's the best summation I've seen thus far.

[BHRamsay]

Valentia X wrote...

BHRamsay wrote...


To undermine Calian's authority mere hours before the battle speaks to his disloyalty
To undermine his daughter's authority speaks to his arrogance.
To supprt Howe's trechery against citizens of Feleden and Lords of the realm speaks to his unreliabity
and to falsly accuse others while covering up his own misdeeds speaks to his dishonour. .

I think that's the best summation I've seen thus far.

thank you -- i've been holding that rant in since release day 

Modifié par BHRamsay, 15 avril 2010 - 09:08 .

[CalJones]

After seeing the documents between Cailan and the Empress, I'm glad he died. After reading the books there's no way I would trust Orlais or would want several hundred heavily armed rapists riding into Fereldan to "aid" the army. I can also understand why Loghain mistrusts the Wardens, given what happened in the Calling. He's wrong about the Fereldan wardens, but I can't really blame him for seeing them as a potential threat.

The problem is that he is so caught up in trying to fend off a potential Orlesian invasion that he underestimates the Darkspawn incursion - or subconsciously chooses not to see it. Someone made a good point in another thread that relates back to Flemmeth's prophecies in the Stolen Throne. One was that Loghain would betray Maric three times, and the other was that there would be a Blight. Loghain didn't want to believe Flemmeth's prophecy of betrayal, so he refused to believe that there was a Blight as well. He couldn't allow her to be right. Which is an entirely reasonable theory.

So yes, that's the first mistake. The second mistake is enlisting the worst possible allies: Uldred, a power hungry fool who allowed the Circle to be turned into abominations, and Howe, an over ambitious murderer who would screw over anyone (Loghain included) to get where he wanted. I don't believe Loghain had anything to do with the Cousland massacre, but the fact he then rewarded Howe with a promotion is inexplicable.

Mistake three is allowing slavers to take the elves. From a practical point of view, I can see that it makes sense. The alienage has been torn by rioting and disease is rife. Why not try to make lemonade out of lemons by at least getting some coin for those doomed elves in order to fill the empty war chest? I am pretty sure that Howe would have suggested the slavery solution, just as he suggested hiring the Crows (especially as the alienage fulls under his jurisdiction and it is Howe's men that put down the riot). However, Loghain did agree to it and we know he spoke with Caladrius and was fully aware of it. Given that he lead a company of elves (the Night Elves) during the Orlesian war, this can rightfully be viewed as a betrayal of those elves.

So I can understand why a lot of people choose not to let him live. There is no doubting that he has done, or permitted, some terrible things. He knows it, admits it and wants to atone for it, if you let him live, but if you condemn him, he doesn't put up a fight. It's almost as though he's saying "it's a fair cop, guv."

On the other hand, he is a war hero, and a great tactician, and as such can be a fantastic asset. (For those who say he's not such a great general, based on Ostagar, bear in mind that fighting there was not his idea, and not his preference. If you take time to listen to the gossiping men, you'll also hear that his army has been succesful in defeating the objecting banns, sometimes when heavily outnumbered. He's still "got it", at least in military terms.)

Once you've recruited him, Anora is safely on the throne (with or without Alistair) so he has no reason to betray you. You have his respect, even if he may not necessarily like you.

I personally spare and recruit him almost every time. Part of it is out of mercy - I am not going to kill a man who has surrendered, and especially not in front of his daughter, when I have shown mercy to Sten, Zevran and others. I also respect the man he was enough to give him that chance of redemption. Were it not for Loghain, Fereldan would be part of Orlais, Maric would have died and Alistair would not even exist. To me, that merits a second chance.

On the subject of Bhelen vs Harrowmont, Harrowmont is obviously the nice guy, but his weakness is immediately evident. Bhelen may be an ass, but he gets things done, he and aims to get rid of the awful caste system. Even my Aeducan supported Bhelen. I can't justify supporting Harrowmont, under the circumstances. Bhelen is the nasty medicine you have to swallow to make your illness go away.

[Silent-Trigger]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Caldarin V wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

zapkeet wrote...

How is it not that simple? What other reasons are there to kill him other than revenge?

sure he did some bad stuff, but is killing him going to bring back duncan (who was also a murderer and an all around bad person)? Is it going to prevent Eamon from ever getting poisoned? Is it ever going to prevent what happened at the circle of Magi? No to all of those

So why kill him?

Because a regicide is a dangerous precendent and punishing the one who did is perfectly justifiable from that perspective. Execution is usually the common punishment.

...wait....did I just argue on the Anti-Loghain camp? wow.

Loghain is not a regicide though, and I've said this before... you didn't light the beacon in time, which is why he didn't charge. From that point of view, it's not his fault that Cailan died

Yes, I am in the camp of people who believe it's mostly Cailan's idiocy that led him to his death.

But, from a certain perspective, people can believe Loghain is responsable for Cailan's death and it would be valid. I wouldn't and still do not agree with it.

The moral of this debate.. is that it's entirely a matter of perspective.  It really depends on if you think the reasoning for his actions (Loghains) were legitimate based on the outcome.  If you listen to his defense in the landsmeet he states "That it's a time of war, sacrifices must be made."  and he was "doing it for the well being of his country".  Now if you TRULY believe that's the case.. anything that Loghain had done could really be justified to a certain extent.  There is always collateral damage in war.  (I'm a soldier I know a little bit about this)  and desperate times call for desperate measures. 
Now.. on the OTHER hand.  If you have any ounce of doubt that Loghain did what he did for the benefit of the country and his men..  then you are going to straight away "go for the jugular".  What I mean by that.. is if you think or get the feeling that he was doing it for Self-Empowerment or political Gain (I.E.  To take the throne) you have to immediately think that he is directly embodying evilness.  He's sacrificing the lives of others and deliberately killing Moral and upstanding individuals for personal gain. 

In addition.. if you think it's alright to sacrifice others for political gain in a time of war (Based on the "Survival of the Fittest" attitude) Then maybe you're okay with what he has done either way.   The point I'm trying to make is that regardless..  there is going to be a debate because everybody has their own views and opinions on what is morally right.   I'll repeat my initial statement.  It is all a matter of perspective.

-Just adding my two cents worth. -