146 réponses à ce sujet

[eucatastrophe]

Silent-Trigger wrote...
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. -

I don't necessarily disagree with you but no matter how you slice it and dice it, bottom line is Loghain is not a good person. He did what he felt was necessary. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

Modifié par eucatastrophe, 15 avril 2010 - 10:14 .

[Remy LeBeau]

Has anyone thought what would have happen if the pc would have lost the landsmeet? Ferelden would have been fubar. I Wish there was an option for when you lost the landsmeet. Your pc got executed. And during the epilogue it would say. Loghains army fought with bravery, and killed the archdemon. Only to see it respawn again and destroy him and his army. Loghains last words was " Maker help me, what have I done". By trying to save the country he loved he doom it by killing the last two remaining Grey Wardens in Ferelden. Some legends are true.

[KnightofPhoenix]

A Loghain thread that turned into a Bhelen thread? That's new. I must express my new found love to Sarah 

@ Silent-trigger. Of course and all perspectives are valid.

[Costin_Razvan]

Remy: I do not think it would be that simple. Killing an archdemon is a hard job, the only reason you kill it so quickly in Origins is because you went straight into it's trap at Denerim. The goal of it was to kill the only three Grey Wardens in Fereldan.

What would have happened most likely is that Loghain would have rallied the country, pushed the darkspawn horde back in the deep roads and the archdemon would never show its true face. Up until the very end no one save the Warden and Company actually sees it.

Who knows. He might have actually not killed/imprisoned Riordan a second time ( we know it was Howe at first )

 I don't necessarily disagree with you but no matter how you slice it and dice it, bottom line is Loghain is not a good person. He did what he felt was necessary. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do.  

Since when is war ever right? As Loghain put it "There is no such thing as innocence, only the living and the dead, and the degrees of guilt both bear."

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 15 avril 2010 - 11:26 .

[nos_astra]

Remy LeBeau wrote...

Has anyone thought what would have happen if the pc would have lost the landsmeet? Ferelden would have been fubar. I Wish there was an option for when you lost the landsmeet. Your pc got executed. And during the epilogue it would say. Loghains army fought with bravery, and killed the archdemon. Only to see it respawn again and destroy him and his army. Loghains last words was " Maker help me, what have I done". By trying to save the country he loved he doom it by killing the last two remaining Grey Wardens in Ferelden. Some legends are true.

AAAAAAAaaaaah, THIS!

[Remy LeBeau]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Remy: I do not think it would be that simple. Killing an archdemon is a hard job, the only reason you kill it so quickly in Origins is because you went straight into it's trap at Denerim. The goal of it was to kill the only three Grey Wardens in Fereldan.

What would have happened most likely is that Loghain would have rallied the country, pushed the darkspawn horde back in the deep roads and the archdemon would never show its true face. Up until the very end no one save the Warden and Company actually sees it.

Who knows. He might have actually not killed/imprisoned Riordan a second time ( we know it was Howe at first )

I didn't say it was going to be easy. I should have said it took months for this to happen. The dark spawn are like **** roaches. They will keep coming back. but with a larger army.Achdemons are know no joke. The Pc got lucky, because Rioden took out his wing and made it crash land.
 
Maybe I should have said this ealier. I have a theory about way it took 200 years  to end the first blight . I figured they killed Dumat ounce, and he respawned. So it took years for the GWs  years to learn how to kill him. You know, take in the taint and in all that.

[Meliorist13]

I have read the majority of this thread, not the entire thing, but one
thing stands out to me, that I did not see anyone touch upon.

This concerns the 'late' lighting of the beacon.  Logain tells Cailan at the
meeting with Duncan and the new wardens, that he has stationed men
at the tower and to let them light the beacon.  *FLAG*

Cailan says no; to let the Grey Wardens do it, and Loghain acquiesces but is
not happy about it.  My thought here, after I saw him abandon the
battle, was that he knew the tower was/had  a weakness, he deliberately
understaffed the defense there, and that it was his plan all along
to abandon Cailan on the battlefield.

Was the lighting of the beacon really late?  Or did the lighting itself throw a
monkey wrench in the works in that it was never supposed to be lit according
to his plan.  He says to hell with it and abandons the field anyway.  Loghain
had nothing to lose and in his mind, no one to dispute him, because he
'assumes' that everyone is going to be annihilated.

Your thoughts???

*sorry, not trying to hijack, but I think the question is pertinent to the subject of this thread*

Modifié par Meliorist13, 15 avril 2010 - 12:53 .

[Sarah1281]

Costin_Razvan  wrote…


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?

I see that as politically needing to not offend Celene and jeopardize their standing in Orlais. There's a difference between that and blatantly disregarding their neutrality when it's not even a Blight and helping Celene retake Ferelden. If nothing else, it would ensure that foreign GW woulnd't be trusted anymore as they could be a herald of an impending invasion.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

A Loghain thread that turned into a Bhelen thread? That's new. I must express my new found love to Sarah 

Yeah, I'm really not sure how that happened but I'm always up for a debate on the subject.

[Lantrov]

In my playthroughs I just kill Loghain by letting Alistair duel and beat him to get his revenge and also show to the Landsmeet Alistair's prowess as Maric's offspring.

On the other hand I do wish to spare Loghain and have him join the Grey Wardens, meta-gaming aside, anyone skilled enough can join the Grey Wardens and Loghain had good intentions, but he executed his plans terribly.

I tell myself it is probably what Duncan would have done even if his appearance was brief, he hit me as a man who knew what it meant to be a real Grey Warden, especially after killing Ser Jory. Duncan would often explain to any of my characters if I protested about anything concerning the Grey Wardens that duty and responsibility take precedence over personal goals. I would have thought that Alistair would've understood the concept of a Grey Warden of sacrificing anything and everything if necessary to stop a Blight. Which meant to me to disregard love, friendships, land, hopes, dreams, and whatever else, if it could help in stopping the Blight.

[Addai]

Silent-Trigger wrote...

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. 

Motive does not matter really.  Loghain committed numerous acts that, purely on the basis of justice, merit his execution.  His motive is also rooted in personal obsession, not primarily self-empowerment or political gain.

[Costin_Razvan]

Motive does not matter really. Loghain committed numerous acts that, purely on the basis of justice, merit his execution. His motive is also rooted in personal obsession, not primarily self-empowerment or political gain.

To say motive doesn't matter is the biggest bull**** of all time.

It would be like saying: Oh hey, a woman killed her would be raper in self defense. Now we send her off to life in jail for that, cause her motive doesn't matter.

Seriously, do you idiots even think? Clearly you don't.

If you want to judge him based on his motives, then by all means.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 avril 2010 - 08:11 .

[eucatastrophe]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
@ Silent-trigger. Of course and all perspectives are valid.

Ah the slippery slopes of moral relativism!
 </3

[eucatastrophe]

[quote]
[quote]Costin_Razvan wrote...

To say motive doesn't matter is the biggest bull**** of all time.

It
would be like saying: Oh hey, a woman killed her would be raper in self
defense. Now we send her off to life in jail for that, cause her motive
doesn't matter.

Seriously, do you idiots even think? Clearly you don't.

If you want to judge him based on his motives, then by all means.

[/quote]

Actually, motive does matter. The analogy you employed is a skewed one to apply to this debate. As such, I wouldn't use things like these if I were you; you lose all credibility whatsoever.

Modifié par eucatastrophe, 16 avril 2010 - 08:17 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

eucatastrophe wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
@ Silent-trigger. Of course and all perspectives are valid.

Ah the slippery slopes of moral relativism!
 </3

Much better than moral absolutism (read, zealotry), in my experience.

[Costin_Razvan]

Actually, motive does matter

Tell that to everyone who apparently thinks otherwise.

A general orders an air strike on hospital from where gunmen are slaughtering his troops, even though the hospital has many wounded and sick in it maybe children as well. In the end many in the hospital die but he saves his troops.

 Here is your analogy.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 avril 2010 - 08:38 .

[eucatastrophe]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Actually, motive does matter

Tell that to everyone who apparently thinks otherwise.

A general orders an air strike on hospital from where gunmen are slaughtering his troops, even though the hospital has many wounded and sick in it maybe children as well. In the end many in the hospital die but he saves his troops.

 Here is your analogy.

LOL @ my quoting fail; that is a better analogy

[eucatastrophe]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

eucatastrophe wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
@ Silent-trigger. Of course and all perspectives are valid.

Ah the slippery slopes of moral relativism!
 </3

Much better than moral absolutism (read, zealotry), in my experience.

I wouldn't call him an evil person but he definitely is a villain. 

[Lowenhart]

zapkeet wrote...

 I've heard some say that picking Loghain is an evil thing to do

Yes we are indeed gonna have alot of Sith in SWTOR. *giggle*

On that note Alistair's reaction made me rage.  I mean, it would have been understandable if I hadn't of had his approval rating at 100, done his side quests, became his best friend, etc.  But i HAD and his reaction was awful.  I didn't think he was a crybaby in the game, it was understandable he was upset about Duncan and the wardens and to be depressed about it, but to act so childish when it came to Loghain made me really reconsider his character all together

He was a bit childish in general i know alot will hate me for saying, but the man never grew a spine and made any decisions on his own except for that one, also he learned nothing from Duncan and practically spit on the memory of the man he claimed to care for, Duncan always said for the greater good, and several occasions pointed out sometimes it took going in the grey, if Duncan been there he would have let Loghain live aswell. However i did persuade Anora to let him live since he was a friend, but after reading the conclusion i kinda regretted not just having him excuted, everytime i have him in my party my impressions and dislike of him become more and more appearent to me.

Modifié par Lowenhart, 16 avril 2010 - 09:42 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

eucatastrophe wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

eucatastrophe wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
@ Silent-trigger. Of course and all perspectives are valid.

Ah the slippery slopes of moral relativism!
 </3

Much better than moral absolutism (read, zealotry), in my experience.

I wouldn't call him an evil person but he definitely is a villain. 

In your opinion.

In my opinion, he is just an antagonist that needs to be stopped.

[eucatastrophe]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

eucatastrophe wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

eucatastrophe wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
@ Silent-trigger. Of course and all perspectives are valid.

Ah the slippery slopes of moral relativism!
 </3

Much better than moral absolutism (read, zealotry), in my experience.

I wouldn't call him an evil person but he definitely is a villain. 

In your opinion.

In my opinion, he is just an antagonist that needs to be stopped.

Isn't that what a villain is?

[KnightofPhoenix]

eucatastrophe wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

eucatastrophe wrote...

I wouldn't call him an evil person but he definitely is a villain. 

In your opinion.

In my opinion, he is just an antagonist that needs to be stopped.

Isn't that what a villain is?

No. A villain necessarily implies the character being "evil". An antagonist doesn't have to be "evil".

[eucatastrophe]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

eucatastrophe wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

eucatastrophe wrote...

I wouldn't call him an evil person but he definitely is a villain. 

In your opinion.

In my opinion, he is just an antagonist that needs to be stopped.

Isn't that what a villain is?

No. A villain necessarily implies the character being "evil". An antagonist doesn't have to be "evil".

Whatever, I'm not going to argue semantics with you.

[Lowenhart]

In my eyes Loghain MacTair reminds me alot of Oliver Cromwell (http://en.wikipedia....Oliver_Cromwell) He was both bad and good i suppose depending on who you are and from which perspective you look.

[Silent-Trigger]

eucatastrophe wrote...

Silent-Trigger wrote...
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. -

I don't necessarily disagree with you but no matter how you slice it and dice it, bottom line is Loghain is not a good person. He did what he felt was necessary. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

 
That's exactly what I was getting at.  In your perspective he's not a good person because of his decisions.  "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."  See what I'm getting at here?

[LadyDamodred]

Lowenhart wrote...
He was a bit childish in general i know alot will hate me for saying, but the man never grew a spine and made any decisions on his own except for that one, also he learned nothing from Duncan and practically spit on the memory of the man he claimed to care for, Duncan always said for the greater good, and several occasions pointed out sometimes it took going in the grey, if Duncan been there he would have let Loghain live aswell. However i did persuade Anora to let him live since he was a friend, but after reading the conclusion i kinda regretted not just having him excuted, everytime i have him in my party my impressions and dislike of him become more and more appearent to me.

Somehow, it always come down to this.  XD  I think it is important when looking at Alistair's character to make sure you only look at him from an in-game perspective and how you related with him.  Look at how much he knows and has been told.  Look at how he views Duncan and the Grey Wardens.  Is it not understandable that he doesn't see things as a veteran Grey Warden would?  I also think sparing Loghain, for Alistair at least, goes beyond 'gray' and into 'black'.  Alistair is willing to do a number of immoral and unsavory things if it will help end the Blight, but in his mind, what Loghain has done is so much worse that it's a line he cannot cross.  To be fair, my character doesn't know a lot about the Grey Wardens either, and doesn't know how far they are willing to go.  When Riordan suggests sparing Loghain, she's like "O.o" and then "Hells no."

Of course Duncan and Riordan would look at it differently.  There are different characters with different life experiences.  I don't see Alistair's reaction as spitting on Duncan's memory either.  Duncan himself would probably feel responsible since he never bothered to fully explain to Alistair exactly how far GW are willing to go. 

As far as Alistair never growing a spine, it depends how you play with him.  If you are friendly, he will go along with you.  If you play as an ****, however, he will basically tell you to eff off.  He stays with you because he needs you to help end the Blight, but he tells you in no uncertain terms how wrong he thinks you are and that no, you are not, in fact, his commander.  You are merely someone with power he will stick with and use to do his duty.

*shrugs*  Just my opinion, obviously, but I like looking at things from all sides, and while I can totally understand and see where you're coming from, this is how I see it.  It's part of what makes Alistair a great character.  You can play with and respond to him in so many different ways that it gives the player the ability to see him in almost anyway that they want.

Modifié par LadyDamodred, 16 avril 2010 - 02:44 .