325 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

That´s were we disagree. I think you have to fight injustice where you can. If you have the chance to save someone from rape, you do it.

So why does Duncan get a free pass here? Because Stopping the Blight is more important than Saving the Alienage?

Look here.

[GavrielKay]

I think a rational person would wake up and see that when your main supporters and allies are folks like Howe and Uldred and your main enemies are your own daughter and an ancient order of warriors dedicated to destroying Darkspawn and the blights - you might stop and think you've crossed some kind of line. I don't think "the ends justify the means" works for all possible means. I am slightly horrified that anyone thinks selling elves to fund a war effort is reasonable.

If there had been an "option C - imprison Loghain for life" I might have taken it. But between killing him and having him as a companion, the choice wasn't very hard for me.

[Willowhugger]

I wonder personally whether Loghain wasn't attempting to clean out the Alienage by selling them all into slavery due to the fact that it was already devastated by a riot and attacks by the Arl.  It's just the kind of sick thing that Loghain's logic would go to, assuming that emptying it out would helped stabilize the city from potential more riots and retaliations from the elves.

I wonder whether or not racism also played a role in Loghain's actions.

[Tirigon]

Willowhugger wrote...

I wonder personally whether Loghain wasn't attempting to clean out the Alienage by selling them all into slavery due to the fact that it was already devastated by a riot and attacks by the Arl.  It's just the kind of sick thing that Loghain's logic would go to, assuming that emptying it out would helped stabilize the city from potential more riots and retaliations from the elves.

I wonder whether or not racism also played a role in Loghain's actions.

In the Landsmeet Loghain actually defends himself by saying that the Alienage is ruined already so he can as well use the elves for something useful.................

[Willowhugger]

In the Landsmeet Loghain actually defends himself by saying that the Alienage is ruined already so he can as well use the elves for something useful.................

Yeah that was pretty psychotic.

[Tirigon]

Willowhugger wrote...


Yeah that was pretty psychotic.

That´s exactly why I hate him:police:

[phaonica]

Willowhugger wrote...

In the Landsmeet Loghain actually defends himself by saying that the Alienage is ruined already so he can as well use the elves for something useful.................

Yeah that was pretty psychotic.

He's a war general. An obdurate pragmatist. During a war he sees everything and everyone in terms of resources. Maric was Loghain's counterbalance.

Modifié par phaonica, 03 mai 2010 - 08:26 .

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...

He's a war general. An obdurate pragmatist. During a war he sees everything and everyone in terms of resources. Maric was Loghain's counterbalance.

A good General wins without war crimes.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

phaonica wrote...

He's a war general. An obdurate pragmatist. During a war he sees everything and everyone in terms of resources. Maric was Loghain's counterbalance.

A good General wins without war crimes.

That means not a single general in human history was a good general.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


That means not a single general in human history was a good general.

Arminius was.

You know, the German who defeated 3 roman legions under Varus.



Alexander the Great too, I think, though I´m not sure.

[Willowhugger]

Alexander the Great too, I think, though I´m not sure.

Not to be rude, but Alexander the Great was a ruthless butcher and tyrant like pretty much all of the people of his day.  I think Loghain's actions were pretty much done because he needed the coin to fight the Blight, no more no less.  Assuming it's about a sovereign or two per elf, it could be a substantial warchest if the Alienage is actually meant to be several thousand people.

Modifié par Willowhugger, 03 mai 2010 - 08:46 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


That means not a single general in human history was a good general.

Arminius was.

You know, the German who defeated 3 roman legions under Varus.



Alexander the Great too, I think, though I´m not sure.

Don't have much info on Arminius, except that at the end, he didn't win.

As for Alexander. The siege of Tyre and Gaza come to mind. And that's just out of the top of my head.

But let me rephrase what I said. All great generals have committed what we today call "war crimes". Napoleon did in Italy and Spain. Caesar did. Hannibal raged a campaign of terror in Italy for 14 years. And I can go on.
Doesn't change the fact that they are Great generals.

[sleepingbelow]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
That means not a single general in human history was a good general.

Er, are you sure?  I mean, I'm pretty sure there were generals that won a war without violating the expected conventions.  What are we defining as a war crime?  Attacking non-combatants?  Torture?  Keeping hostages?

EDIT--

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
But let me rephrase what I said. All great generals have committed what we today call "war crimes". 

Ah, I see.  We're talking the big winners.

EDIT 2--
What about Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant?  I'm just tossing out names here, but I was under the impression that those two were pretty gentlemanly.  Lee may have lost, but he was often winning against superior forces.  Grant just wore him down with superior numbers, right?
I'm just tossing out names.

EDIT 3--
I guess Grant did have Sherman on his side.  Scorched earth could arguably be called a war crime.  Even if looting was prohibited.

Modifié par sleepingbelow, 03 mai 2010 - 09:25 .

[attend]

Loghain was suppose to be a brilliant strategist.



His great plan was to sacrifice half the army to the blight to remove the king at the start of the war. Great move. Then take over the rule of Ferelden to which he had little claim thereby starting a civil war. I believe in my limited intelligence even I can see without a clear and strong candidate to the throne, civil war was a given.



Now he has half an army of capable fighters, no outside support, and then he proceedes to sell off able bodied men and women who would have fought to protect their homes for money to fund his war effort. In addition he sends a mage back to the tower to instigate a revolt. Come on! Are you kidding me? There goes his mage troops.



None of the Dalish elves or the dwarves recognize Ferelden rule or law. They would not come to his aid without having some connection which Loghain is sadly without.



This is not a sound strategy. It has no merit. How could anyone support his actions. Nothing he did was to the benefit of Ferelden. Maybe in his own twisted mind, but it has no logic.



Forgive me phaonica, but I must disagree with your assessment of the situation. Pragmatic does not mean insane. Duncan was pragmatic. He used the cool logic that he was better off stopping the blight than... whatever moral choice laid in front of him.



Loghain only had his hatred of the Orlesian Empire. That is not a valid reason for what he did.

[phaonica]

His great plan was to sacrifice half the army to the blight to remove the king at the start of the war. Great move.

His plan was to get as much of the army out of there as possible if he decided they couldn't win it. When he went to Ostagar, he thought the battle was winnable, but he planned an escape route if he needed it. At the time, that escape route *included* Cailan. It wasn't until after they got to Ostagar, Loghain was starting to realize that they couldn't win, and Cailan made it clear that the only backup they'd be seeking was from Orlais that Loghain decided to arrange Cailan's death. If he had retreated with Cailan, Cailan would have brought in Orlais as backup instead of seeking the dwarves/mages/elves.

Then take over the rule of Ferelden to which he had little claim thereby starting a civil war. I believe in my limited intelligence even I can see without a clear and strong candidate to the throne, civil war was a given.

I agree. If he had let Anora claim the throne, the people would have been more likely to follow her, the civil war might not have started, and I don't think Anora would have had him executed. She was more likely to turn down the help from the Orlesians, and the dwarves/mages/elves would probably have been more open to her ambassadors, or at least every bit as open to them as they would have been to Cailan's if he had tried (but he wouldn't have tried because he had Orlesian backup coming).

and then he proceedes to sell off able bodied men and women who would have fought to protect their homes for money to fund his war effort.

He can't afford to train these people, either. Is it better to supply your trained soldiers, or to collect even more not-trained peasant fighters that you also can't supply? There was logic to it, whether or not it was morally wrong.        

  In addition he sends a mage back to the tower to instigate a revolt. Come on! Are you kidding me? There goes his mage troops.

Loghain did not plan the revolt. Either he was just really bad at choosing allies, or he thought he could control them.

This is not a sound strategy. It has no merit. How could anyone support his actions. Nothing he did was to the benefit of Ferelden. Maybe in his own twisted mind, but it has no logic.

He thought he could handle the repercussions that killing Cailan would have. He thought that if he told the people about the danger that Cailan was going to put them in, that they would understand. He thought that he had enough influence to bring them around. He was wrong.

There was logic behind his plans, but things that are logical don't always work in practice. Especially when you are trying to anticipate how people will act. This was the side of things that Maric probably handled when he was around.

Loghain got in over his head, political strategy and battle strategy are two completely different arenas. And the more things went wrong, the more desperate he became. But I don't see any wickedness in him. Desperation, yes, weakness even, but no wickedness.

If one argues that his ends and intent were not good, then of course no means will justify the ends. I believe that the ends he was trying to achieve were good, and that he had good intentions. But obviously, that is not enough. If someone who has good intentions does something harmful, due to negligence, stupidity, fear, weakness or whatever, and shouldn't get away with it just because they thought they were doing right, at what point does their punishment cross the line into execution? At what point does one not deserve a second chance?

People are going to have different places where they draw that line. If I were to venture to explore where my line is I guess I would ask myself, "Do they recognize and care that what they did was wrong?" and "Now that this person is contained, if I let them go, can they be trusted to not hurt anyone else?" For me, personally, Loghain still *potentialy* falls within these bounds when I am forced to make the decision at the Landsmeet. I am not going to execute him while I still have doubts and questions. I can execute him later if I don't like his answers.

After the Landsmeet, and having spared him, and having the opportunity to have my questions answered:

Do I think he recognized and cared that what he did was wrong? I think he did care about Ferelden's sovereignty, but had no idea how heavy the political responsibility of it was. Even small mistakes that a King makes can cost numerous lives. The smallest mistake a general makes can cause numerous soldiers' lives, too. He couldn't handle them both. He knows he screwed up and he knows he sacrificed morality trying to fix it.

Which brings me to the next question: Can he be trusted not to hurt anyone else? Once his power as regent is taken away, and given to someone who also cares about Ferelden's sovereignty, and who has more experience with the political responsibilty of it, once that weight is taken off of him, I think he'll go back to being an effective general.

Do I think he would pull this crap again, if the new ruler of Ferelden turned out to suck at it too? I don't think he would. I think he recognizes that he couldn't do it alone, that he can't trust himself to choose political allies, and that he would rather other forces damage Ferelden than to allow himself to do it again.

[sleepingbelow]

phaonica wrote...
An epic, awesome post that melted my face a little.

Awesome post.  I wanted to specifically agree with you there at the end.  There's this one quote from DAA if you spared him in DAO. *spoilers*

He says that "leadership looks good" on the Warden.  The Warden can respond, "Thank you, to be honest I prefer this life."  Loghain responds, "Then you are lucky."  Loghain is not eager to ever get back in the political saddle.

Really, I feel he needs Maric to counter balance him, not just professionally, but emotionally.  Maric was somebody he could actually talk to and respect.  Throughout DAO, did you ever get the feeling that he had nobody to talk to?  Most of the nobles are intimidated by him, Cauthrien has this weird idolization thing going on, Howe is a creepy sociopath.  I can see loneliness and isolation really feeding that desperation he displays.  Which is probably why he seems to calm down so quickly if you spare him, and then talk to him.  Not to get all touchy feely, but when is the last time you think somebody asked Loghain how he was doing?

That entire civil war might have been averted if Fereldan had therapists. 

Modifié par sleepingbelow, 04 mai 2010 - 04:46 .

[sleepingbelow]

double post.

Modifié par sleepingbelow, 04 mai 2010 - 04:45 .

[sleepingbelow]

dear lord, epic fail at forum posting.

Modifié par sleepingbelow, 04 mai 2010 - 04:49 .

[phaonica]

sleepingbelow wrote...

Awesome post. 

Posting in the forums makes me incredibly nervous. 

He says that "leadership looks good" on the Warden.  The Warden can respond, "Thank you, to be honest I prefer this life."  Loghain responds, "Then you are lucky."  Loghain is not eager to ever get back in the political saddle.

You're right. He acts incredibly relieved to be able to trust Ferelden to you.

Really, I feel he needs Maric to counter balance him, not just professionally, but emotionally.  Maric was somebody he could actually talk to and respect.  Throughout DAO, did you ever get the feeling that he had nobody to talk to?  

I did get that feeling. It made me very sad. He kept screwing up and I couldnt' reach him to stop him from ruining himself.

Which is probably why he seems to calm down so quickly if you spare him, and then talk to him.  Not to get all touchy feely, but when is the last time you think somebody asked Loghain how he was doing?

I think it's a kind sentiment.  One could argue that in the end, he no longer deserved anyone's kindness.
Singly, it doesn't justify his actions, but it definitely influences my decisions.

That entire civil war might have been averted if Fereldan had therapists. 

haha!

Modifié par phaonica, 04 mai 2010 - 05:58 .

[Willowhugger]

I'd like to suggest, I don't think that Loghain consciously intended to murder Calian. I think he chose to let the son of his friend die because the Darkspawn force was too overwhelming. The Grey Wardens weren't something he mourned over but he decided to make them a scapegoat.



Mistake 1#: The Grey Wardens aren't what he remembered. Loghain remembered them as a traitorous order of murderers. EVERYONE ELSE IN THE KINGDOM remembered them as Blight fighters.



Loghain then proceeded to take over the regency. He assumed they needed a military leader and his daughter wouldn't suffice, being the cute as a button girl he remembered.



Mistake 2#: Loghain has NO legitimacy to being Regent. A Landsmeet should have been called for who should be Regent, bizarrely, it might have swung in his favor.



Then Loghain poisoned Eamon and made a deal with Uldred.



Mistake 3#: He did these two things to give him an edge politically as well as mystically. We saw how that worked out.



Plus 4#, the fact that he starts sending troops to grab conscripts and appoints Howe Arl of Denerim. No one likes Howe.



Mistake 4#: Basically, tarring himself with the villain brush.

[Orchomene]

If you think the way people thought at the beginning of Ostagar, then the acts of Loghain are pretty logical : many people but the Wardens thought this was not a real Blight and that there was no Archdemon.
Thus, Loghain feared more a tricky attack from Orlais sooner or later.

That's why he got back to Denerim and took the power : if the enemy is Orlais, he is the best placed to unite Ferelden against the enemy.

At some moment, as we can see, Loghain seems to worry about something.
It seems clear that at some moment he understood that the real enemy was not Orlais but a Blight.
The problem is that he was in the middle of the action and couldn't easily back up without adding more confusion in Ferelden, thus he kept organizing the Ferelden army.

After the Landsmeet, it's clear that he can see that the Warden can unite Ferelden and lead an army against the Blight and thus let easily the Warden take the leadership.

About the rest, I have no specific judgement. Slavery, assassinations, political manipulations are just very small details.

Modifié par Orchomene, 04 mai 2010 - 12:41 .

[nos_astra]

Orchomene wrote...
If you think the way people thought at the beginning of Ostagar, then the acts of Loghain are pretty logical : many people but the Wardens thought this was not a real Blight and that there was no Archdemon.
Thus, Loghain feared more a tricky attack from Orlais sooner or later.

Just to add some knowledge. It is unusual for Darkspawn to raid the surface when they're not being led by an Archdemon. Small raids, yes. A Darkspawn "army" large enough to scare Loghain and make him quit the field is extremely unusual. It makes no sense that Loghain believes the battle lost but still claims this is not a Blight.

Especially after the Blight is beginning to eat at the south (like Lothering) and refugee start to head north.

And we are to believe that Loghain somehow missed these details? Up until the Landsmeet?

Modifié par klarabella, 04 mai 2010 - 03:46 .

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...

and then he proceedes to sell off able bodied men and women who would have fought to protect their homes for money to fund his war effort.

He can't afford to train these people, either. Is it better to supply your trained soldiers, or to collect even more not-trained peasant fighters that you also can't supply? There was logic to it, whether or not it was morally wrong.       

Ever heard of cannon fodder?
It´s always good to have a few meat shields, especially if the enemy has as many archers as the Darkspawn...

Besides, even an untrained peasant can, for example, hold a long pike to form a defense line (especially useful since the Darkspawn strategy in Ostagar consisted mainly of running at maximal speed towards the enemy.)

Honestly, during the video of the battle I always thought "Don´t charge, idiots!! Get a f*cking phalanx!!!"