240 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Gaider already said that the Horde at Ostagar was larger than all of them thought and they were much mroe organised. RtO subtly showed that the battle was probably not winnable. We may never know, but I do not expect Loghain to rush in a battle he was not sure to win, just to save an idiot. Thus, he did not charge and that was a good decision in my opinion. As Sun Tzu said, a good general is one who avoids the battles he is not sure to win.

It would have been wiser to charge nevertheless, thus repelling the Darkspawn for a short while, and then to retreat with the entire army. And especially with the Wardens. A good general might avoid a battle, but he won´t desert half his army without even trying to save them.

As for the civil war. He was going to deal with the enemies within, before facing the enemies without.
I only wonder what those who participated in the civil war on the other side were thinking. Fighting Ferelden's greatest general while the darkspawn are ravaging the south.

They were power-hungry noble assclowns who are hardly any better, if not even worse, than Loghain.

[Tirigon]

Xandurpein wrote...


I nkow that the game is written so I am supposed to belive that it was treason. That is NOT the same as saying that the game makes it clear to me as an observer that it was indeed betrayal. The game is full of people lying to you to stear you in a certain path, and Flemeth is one of the worst.

But the cutscenes that show Loghain and your Character DOES NOT!! see are written in the same way. That leads me to believe that the observer is indeed supposed to believe the same.

Loghain´s choice to ally with the likes of Howe doesn´t really speak in his favour either...

[KnightofPhoenix]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Gaider already said that the Horde at Ostagar was larger than all of them thought and they were much mroe organised. RtO subtly showed that the battle was probably not winnable. We may never know, but I do not expect Loghain to rush in a battle he was not sure to win, just to save an idiot. Thus, he did not charge and that was a good decision in my opinion. As Sun Tzu said, a good general is one who avoids the battles he is not sure to win.

It would have been wiser to charge nevertheless, thus repelling the Darkspawn for a short while, and then to retreat with the entire army. And especially with the Wardens. A good general might avoid a battle, but he won´t desert half his army without even trying to save them.

And risk all of Ferelden's army in an attempt to do this? How is he supposed to repel the darkspawn, while they already surrounded the king's position and the mages were broken?  How is he going to retreat then when the darkspawn would be in pursuit? That's sounds like a terrible plan to me.

And yes, a good general would abandon part of his army to save the greater part, or equal part. Just like he would be willing to abandon whole cities and lands until he gets to fight the enemy in a position favorable to him. Of course a greater general would not have allowed that to happen in the first place and that was Loghain's mistake. That he intially thought Ostagar was winnable.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2010 - 09:31 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

How  am I prissy about principles on one hand?

I refer to Loghain, who could not bear the thought of Orlesian chevaliers on Fereldan soil but would like to justify selling his own people into slavery to a foreign nation because "war is hard."

Gaider already said that the Horde at Ostagar was larger than all of them thought and they were much mroe organised. RtO subtly showed that the battle was probably not winnable. We may never know, but I do not expect Loghain to rush in a battle he was not sure to win, just to save an idiot. Thus, he did not charge and that was a good decision in my opinion. As Sun Tzu said, a good general is one who avoids the battles he is not sure to win.

As for the civil war. He was going to deal with the enemies within, before facing the enemies without.
I only wonder what those who participated in the civil war on the other side were thinking. Fighting Ferelden's greatest general while the darkspawn are ravaging the south.

If the horde could not be defeated at Ostagar, then there is no hope of defeating them with what he must have known would be a fractured nation (no nation takes such a defeat and the death of its king lightly) and Loghain has no choice but to make an alliance with other nations against them.  This is Anora's argument to him in the cutscene, but he will not even listen to her.

The just war scenario may fit another man and another situation, but Loghain does not get to plead it.

Edit P.S.:  Oh, and the Bannorn were not fighting against the Hero of River Dane, they were fighting against the general who lost the Battle of Ostagar (fair or not, he was the general of Cailan's armies) and illegally declared himself regent before, as Anora says, the body was even cold.

Modifié par Addai67, 03 juin 2010 - 10:00 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Loghain was going kuku at that point just look at his face and hear his lines, he is obviously coming apart at the seams. While not an excuse it does provide a reason for some of his actions.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

I refer to Loghain, who could not bear the thought of Orlesian chevaliers on Fereldan soil but would like to justify selling his own people into slavery to a foreign nation because "war is hard."

Because his nation's independence and sovereignity is not something he is going to sacrifice or compromise. That's the cause that he percieves as just in his war. So no I see no incoherence whatsoever.

Addai67 wrote...
If the horde could not be defeated at Ostagar, then there is no hope of defeating them with what he must have known would be a fractured nation (no nation takes such a defeat and the death of its king lightly) and Loghain has no choice but to make an alliance with other nations against them.  This is Anora's argument to him in the cutscene, but he will not even listen to her.

The just war scenario may fit another man and another situation, but Loghain does not get to plead it.

Loghain had planned to use all the mages in the war, had Uldred managed to convince the Circle which he was very close to do if it wasn't for Wynne's stupidity.
And he sent emissaries to the Dwarves, who of course happened to lose their king in that very moment.

He knew he needed allies and he was trying to get them.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2010 - 10:05 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Because his nation's independence and sovereignity is not something he is going to sacrifice or compromise. That's the cause that he percieves as just in his war. So no I see no incoherence whatsoever.

Now you're switching arguments.  You said what he did was justified because it would save the lives of thousands of people, not that it was justified because selling a few elves would uphold his principle of no Orlesians on Fereldan soil.

Modifié par Addai67, 03 juin 2010 - 10:05 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Because his nation's independence and sovereignity is not something he is going to sacrifice or compromise. That's the cause that he percieves as just in his war. So no I see no incoherence whatsoever.

Now you're switching arguments.  You said what he did was justified because it would save the lives of thousands of people, not that it was justified because selling a few elves would uphold his principle of no Orlesians on Fereldan soil.

No I am not. You brought the Orlesians up.
The elven issue was to save the lives of everyone else in Ferelden.

Ferelden indepedence and sovereignity, in addition to the lives of his people, both of which are intertwined in his mind (because of how much Ferelden suffered at their hands), rejected Orlesian support.
 
In a "Just War", the principle that is percieved as "just" or making the war "just", is not to be compromised, otherwise it would no longer be called "just war" anymore. The principle Loghain was not going to sacrifice was Ferelden independence and the lives of his people as a whole. All other principles could be ignored to that "just cause".
That's the concept of just war.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2010 - 10:11 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

In a "Just War", the principle that is percieved as "just" or making the war "just", is not to be compromised, otherwise it would no longer be called "just war" anymore. The principle Loghain was not going to sacrifice was Ferelden independence and the lives of his people as a whole. All other principles could be ignored to that "just cause".
That's the concept of just war.

I understand this.  However, earlier you were arguing that his actions were justified because they would save the lives of thousands of people.  Now you're arguing that they're justified because they would keep foreigners out of Ferelden.  You had a weak enough argument for the former, though blood for blood does hold up sometimes.  The latter is moving further out on a thin limb.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
I understand this.  However, earlier you were arguing that his actions were justified because they would save the lives of thousands of people.  Now you're arguing that they're justified because they would keep foreigners out of Ferelden.  You had a weak enough argument for the former, though blood for blood does hold up sometimes.  The latter is moving further out on a thin limb.

No, you did not get it.

I said his retreat at Ostagar was justified because of fear of Orlesian invasion and to avoid the loss of the entire army (you brought Ostagar up).
His slavery of the elves was justified to save Ferelden as a whole.

I am sorry my argument isn't strong enough for you, but I at least try to be coherent.

[Tirigon]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


And risk all of Ferelden's army in an attempt to do this? How is he supposed to repel the darkspawn, while they already surrounded the king's position and the mages were broken?  How is he going to retreat then when the darkspawn would be in pursuit? That's sounds like a terrible plan to me.

You underestimate the effect of flanking attacks. By attacking the enemy on the flank when he´s not expecting it you can cause great confusion and likely turn the tides in a battle.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I htink you overestimate its effects on a mindless horde that knows no fear and hesitation. But we will never know what Ostagar would have been had Loghain charged. I personally think the chances of utter defeat were so high that his retreat was justified.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I understand this.  However, earlier you were arguing that his actions were justified because they would save the lives of thousands of people.  Now you're arguing that they're justified because they would keep foreigners out of Ferelden.  You had a weak enough argument for the former, though blood for blood does hold up sometimes.  The latter is moving further out on a thin limb.

No, you did not get it.

I said his retreat at Ostagar was justified because of fear of Orlesian invasion and to avoid the loss of the entire army (you brought Ostagar up).
His slavery of the elves was justified to save Ferelden as a whole.

I am sorry my argument isn't strong enough for you, but I at least try to be coherent.

Reading back through the thread, I see that it was Costin_Razvan who was arguing that the slavery was justified to save thousands of lives.  You were arguing that slavery can be a just means to build a civilization.  So you're right, I am mischaracterizing your argument.  I find it abhorrent, but you were being consistent.

[Selej]

Tirigon wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


And risk all of Ferelden's army in an attempt to do this? How is he supposed to repel the darkspawn, while they already surrounded the king's position and the mages were broken?  How is he going to retreat then when the darkspawn would be in pursuit? That's sounds like a terrible plan to me.

You underestimate the effect of flanking attacks. By attacking the enemy on the flank when he´s not expecting it you can cause great confusion and likely turn the tides in a battle.

In RtO, the colorguard person even said that the fight was unwinnable but Cailan stayed and fought an unwinnable fight. The darkspawn were too plentiful and too organized.

Loghain didn't fail at Ostagar. If you talk to him, especially as a human noble in his tent before the battle, he states that they should pull back and not have the king on the frontlines. Cailan refused and demanded a battleplan that had him on the frontlines. He did the best he could do with the situation and as the PC and Alistair were late lighting the beacon, he saw at that point the battle was lost. He had to mend his losses and attempt to rebuild. The king would have been alive if he listened to Loghain.

As for the war crimes brought up in the thread, you should really talk to Ser Cautherine (sp?) About her views as to what Loghain did and the price of war. The PC and Alistair, along with Eamon and Teagan, led the civil war opposition. Keep in mind, for all Loghain knew, you and Alistair who represent the GWs, were late lighting the beacons could have been on purpose. From his view point, you waited too late to signal the flank and at that point, the battle was lost. The treasury was emptied trying to rebuild the nation that they needed to make sacrafices. For those that never have been in real war, sacrafices have to be made for the greater good. Morality has to be bent at times for the sake of survival.

[Tirigon]

Selej wrote...

As for the war crimes brought up in the thread, you should really talk to Ser Cautherine (sp?)

Sadly, this b*tch isn´t really talkative in Howe´s estate, and afterwards she´s a bit dead.

[Giggles_Manically]

Ser C. is dead i killed her and all of her children.

[phaonica]

jsr24 wrote...

Howe had an Orlesian mistress you think Loghain would of kept him as close if he knew that, or if he knew Howe was smuggling goods from the treasury for his own benefit when the country is strained and needs every coin it can get..

How did I miss this? Where is it mentioned?

[phaonica]

jsr24 wrote...

If you do Crime Wave, Slim tells you to steal from Arl Rendon Howe's mistress who is an Orlesian, and later you steal from Howe, and when explaining the mark Slim tells you Howe is stealing from the treasury

Ah. Thank you. I learn something new every day.

[Giggles_Manically]

@jsr24, while I do agree with you the Alistairites do not and shall descend upon us. There posts will blot out the sun.

[phaonica]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

@jsr24, while I do agree with you the Alistairites do not and shall descend upon us. There posts will blot out the sun.

Only if you summon them by using their name.


*jkiloveyoualldon'thurtme*

[Xandurpein]

The question of whether the final battle at Ostagar could have been won and if Cailan and the Grey Wardens would have survived if Loghain had charged is simply one of those things that we will probably never know one way or the other. I think the we really are not supposed to know.

It is perfectly acceptable to argue from the position that you believe that Ostagar was winnable or that it wasn't, but please keep in mind that others have equally valid reasons for believing otherwise.

It may seem like knit picking to some, but to me there is a vast difference between arguing:

"Loghain is a jerk, because he he abandoned the King, and that is treason"

and

"I think that Loghain is a jerk, because I believe that abandoned the King, and that is treason to me."

The first sentence is claiming that something is an absolute truth without any support to prove it.  The second is stating an opinion and is a perfectly valid argument to me, even if I don't share the opinion fully.

[Finiffa]

Xandurpein wrote...

The question of whether the final battle at Ostagar could have been won and if Cailan and the Grey Wardens would have survived if Loghain had charged is simply one of those things that we will probably never know one way or the other. I think the we really are not supposed to know.

My problem with Loghain is not so much about whether the battle could be won or not. It is the fact that he frames the Grey Wardens for betrayal at Ostagar when in fact they battled hard and were all killed (except for the PC and Alistair ofc).  IF the battle at Ostagar was a lost cause because the amount of darkspawn showing was so much more then expected then why did he feel the need to frame the Grey Wardens? Why did he tell everyone they betrayed the king? To me it seems he wants to clear HIS conscious about it by laying the blame elsewhere. And since he ties the warden to Orlais......nice scapegoat found.... 

[Tirigon]

Xandurpein wrote...

It may seem like knit picking to some, but to me there is a vast difference between arguing:

"Loghain is a jerk, because he he abandoned the King, and that is treason"

and

"I think that Loghain is a jerk, because I believe that abandoned the King, and that is treason to me."

The first sentence is claiming that something is an absolute truth without any support to prove it.  The second is stating an opinion and is a perfectly valid argument to me, even if I don't share the opinion fully.

Thing is, according to military law desertion IS treason, no matter what you think, even if the battle was unwinnable. The fact that this desertion got the king killed and resulted in a Civil War doesn´t really make it any better, either....

Modifié par Tirigon, 04 juin 2010 - 09:42 .