497 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarah1281]

FiliusMartis wrote...

I made the statement clearly saying a party lead by a Cousland. A Cousland might find that a man whose loyalties shift so readily, who massacres innocents unprovoked, and who moves his armies secretly and/or lies about their locations would not be a good ally.

And I don't have Darkspawn Chronicles so I'm sorry, I did not take that into account.

I also was talking about a Cousland. I just mentioned a random human mage Warden because if Howe is detrimental to the cause then it doesn't matter who you are, you won't support him. The situation is 'Howe and his considerable support volunteer to ally with Eamon and that is enough to easily win the Landsmeet and unite the country.' Do you do your duty and accept it until after the Blight when you can do whatever you feel you have to see that justice/vengeance is done of do you betray the ideals of your famiy to kill him now or outright leave?

TJPags wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

You promise your father at the end of the Origin to always do your duty, if you are going to betray that promise just to get your revenge regardless of the consequences then perhaps you should reconsider what the Cousland name means to you.

Though personally I would say **** this, and join Loghain's side if I had to side with Howe as an ally of Eamon.

And I would be doing my duty by protecting the realm, and ensuring that my parents murderer - Renden Howe - doesn't profit by that murder. 

I DID suggest a compromise which would likely be acceptable on my end, after all.  But really, how could anyone in that situation simply forget the whole "massacre my parents, my sister in law and young nephew" aspect and let Howe himself prosper?

The time to worry about not letting him prosper is NOT when the country is tearing itself apart during a Blight.

[Ulicus]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Everyone known to be of the royal family was killed by the Orlesians in the occupation. 

This is something I've thought about a lot... because it's incredibly implausible unless Ferelden dicates some sort of "cut off point".

Calenhad's time was four hundred years ago. While the Orlesians could have certainly killed everyone with very close familial links to the reigning royal family -- and likely did -- the idea that Alistair is the "last surviving son of the blood" -- as Eamon claims -- is ridiculous unless the noble families of Ferelden never married amongst each other.  After all, four hundred years after William the Conquerer took the crown of England, pretty much every English noble could claim descent from him at least a couple of times over.

Which brings me to the "cut off point" idea.  Given the odd (historically speaking) "psuedo-democratic" way in which Ferelden decides the succession -- presumably only from amongst those of the royal line (providing they have one) -- it stands to reason that, to limit the potential for civil war and reduce legitimate claimants, they might have introduced some sort of "block". I.E. one can only claim to be a true "son/daughter of the Blood" if they are within two generations (child or grandchild) of a reigning Ferelden monarch: irrespective of how many other Ferelden Kings and Queens they may be descended from. (The last thing Ferelden would need is every single noble being able to make a play for the crown in the wake of the reigning monarch's death, after all!)

Because, realistically, nearly every Bann/Arl of an old pre-occupation noble family standing in that Landsmeet Chamber would be a descendant of Calenhad.

Modifié par Ulicus, 01 août 2010 - 09:59 .

[FiliusMartis]

A Cousland has inside knowledge. Howe robbed the troops at Ostagar of two sets of reinforcements, Bryce Cousland's men and Howe's own men, for petty power grabbing reasons. A mage warden does not know this. A Cousland might perceive Howe as being more of a liability is what I meant; sorry I wasn't being clear.



I'm pretty sure Bryce tells his kid to take revenge too... so this is a rp point really.

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Most of why I want him to die is because of what he does during the game - leaving the battle at Ostagar, his power grab, poisoning Eamon, slavery, complicity with Howe in: murdering the Couslands, torturing and imprisoning nobles, framing the Wardens, hiring assassins to try to kill me.
 

Do his motives not matter at all? Because Jowan poisoned Eamon, too, did you execute him? Zevran tried to kill you, did you kill him? Sten murdered that whole family, did you let him die in that cage? 

You can argue that Loghain did much more than that, but what if you hadn't stopped Zevran? He would have continued to assassinate people. What other dumb things would Jowan have ended up doing that could have put people in danger? How do you know that Sten wasn't going to murder more people? 

Well, Jowan was sort of coerced into doing what he did, remember.  I kill him about 50% of the time, I guess.

Zev is, after all, a hired gun, and he pledges me his personal loyalty - much different then what he did with Loghain.

Sten had a moment of insanity, which he regrets.  And yes, I always let him out and let him join me.

Some distinctions between them, in my mind, anyway.

First, each did only one thing -  Loghain did many.
Each admitted their guilt - Loghain did not.
Each was ready to accept their punishment - Jowan and Zev ready to die at my hand, Sten in that cage.  Loghain fights tooth and nail to keep his improper position.

Also, none of them are in the position of running a country.  The crimes of Loghain, IMO, are magnified by that.

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

You promise your father at the end of the Origin to always do your duty, if you are going to betray that promise just to get your revenge regardless of the consequences then perhaps you should reconsider what the Cousland name means to you.

Though personally I would say **** this, and join Loghain's side if I had to side with Howe as an ally of Eamon.

And I would be doing my duty by protecting the realm, and ensuring that my parents murderer - Renden Howe - doesn't profit by that murder. 

I DID suggest a compromise which would likely be acceptable on my end, after all.  But really, how could anyone in that situation simply forget the whole "massacre my parents, my sister in law and young nephew" aspect and let Howe himself prosper?

The time to worry about not letting him prosper is NOT when the country is tearing itself apart during a Blight.

Perhaps details could be worked out later, but at the time I accept him, I'd want assurances about Highever, at least.

[TJPags]

Ulicus wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Everyone known to be of the royal family was killed by the Orlesians in the occupation. 

This is something I've thought about a lot... because it's incredibly implausible unless Ferelden dicates some sort of "cut off point".

Calenhad's time was four hundred years ago. While the Orlesians could have certainly killed everyone with very close familial links to the reigning royal family -- and likely did -- the idea that Alistair is the "last surviving son of the blood" -- as Eamon claims -- is ridiculous unless the noble families of Ferelden never married amongst each other.  After all, four hundred years after William the Conquerer took the crown of England, pretty much every English noble could claim descent from him at least a couple of times over.

Which brings me to the "cut off point" idea.  Given the odd (historically speaking) "psuedo-democratic" way in which Ferelden decides the succession -- presumably only from amongst those of the royal line (providing they have one) -- it stands to reason that, to limit the potential for civil war and reduce legitimate claimants, they might have introduced some sort of "block". I.E. one can only claim to be a true "son/daughter of the Blood" if they are within two generations (child or grandchild) of a reigning Ferelden monarch: irrespective of how many other Ferelden Kings and Queens they may be descended from. (The last thing Ferelden would need is every single noble being able to make a play for the crown in the wake of the reigning monarch's death, after all!)

Because, realistically, nearly every Bann/Arl of an old pre-occupation noble family standing in that Landsmeet Chamber would be a descendant of Calenhad.

My thoughts as well, although I didn't consider a 'cut off' scenario.  As you, I find it pretty convenient that there is NO other claimant to the throne, but I can rationalize it, like this:

Fair enough - as I said before, never read the books.

I rationalize it by thinking that most nobles likely died during the initial occupation, others killed/died in intervening years, and records which would show that so-and-so was really Maric's cousin 27 times removed from 22 generations back were likely lost/destroyed along the way.

[Ulicus]

FiliusMartis wrote...

A Cousland has inside knowledge. Howe robbed the troops at Ostagar of two sets of reinforcements, Bryce Cousland's men and Howe's own men, for petty power grabbing reasons. A mage warden does not know this. A Cousland might perceive Howe as being more of a liability is what I meant; sorry I wasn't being clear.

I'm pretty sure Bryce tells his kid to take revenge too... so this is a rp point really.

Howe attacks Highever Castle after the vast majority of the Cousland forces have left for Ostagar with Fergus. One assumes that most of the Highever forces -- barring Fergus' scouting party -- were at the battle with the king. Or perhaps under Loghain's command?

[FiliusMartis]

Most of the Cousland forces, perhaps, but not necessarily all. There's still the matter of Howe's own forces. My point is that a Cousland knows Howe to be a traitor, one who doesn't always show up when someone might be counting on his support, which could be a legitimate reason to not want an alliance him depending on how one is rping the character.

[Ulicus]

TJPags wrote...
I rationalize it by thinking that most nobles likely died during the initial occupation, others killed/died in intervening years, and records which would show that so-and-so was really Maric's cousin 27 times removed from 22 generations back were likely lost/destroyed along the way.

If we were talking about an older kingdom I could swallow that more easily. As it stands, we know that there were "only" around fourteen generations between Calenhad's time and the present day (if we take the Howe family as the standard)... we're more likely looking at 2nd/3rd/4th cousins.

EDIT: In my fanon (FANON, I cannot emphasise this enough! ), Bryce Cousland was the great-grandson of King Vanedrin Theirin through his grandmother (his father was Queen Moira's cousin). When Maric died in 9:25 Dragon, a small portion of the nobility, galvanised by Arl Howe, attempted to get the cut off point extended to three generations so as to raise Bryce to the throne. Bryce, being a staunch traditionalist, pubicly condemned the movement... both embarrassing Howe and allowing Cailan to ascend to the throne unchallenged.

Basically, I really liked that little bit in the HN origin where Darrien talks about how some of the nobility wanted Bryce to be King instead of Cailan and I wanted to rationalise how that could work given the human noble seems to have no claim to the throne in their own right.

And, yes, this does mean that -- in my head -- Alistair and the HN are 3rd Cousins.

Because that's how nobility rolls, damn it.

Modifié par Ulicus, 01 août 2010 - 10:41 .

[Sarah1281]

I'm pretty sure Bryce tells his kid to take revenge too... so this is a rp point really.

Not at the cost of the country, he wouldn't.

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Do his motives not matter at all? Because Jowan poisoned Eamon, too, did you execute him? Zevran tried to kill you, did you kill him? Sten murdered that whole family, did you let him die in that cage? 

You can argue that Loghain did much more than that, but what if you hadn't stopped Zevran? He would have continued to assassinate people. What other dumb things would Jowan have ended up doing that could have put people in danger? How do you know that Sten wasn't going to murder more people? 

Well, Jowan was sort of coerced into doing what he did, remember. 

He poisoned Eamon to save his own butt. Why should he ever be excused for this? Because he only poisoned one person? If he'd poisoned a hundred people, would that be enough to warrant an execution? Why is it okay because he didn't *know* or he didn't *care* how many other people his actions might affect?

Zev is, after all, a hired gun, and he pledges me his personal loyalty - much different then what he did with Loghain.

Again, so what? He is completely unapologetic about assassinating people. He only changes his loyalty to save himself, and you also have nearly no reason to trust that he's telling you the truth.

Sten had a moment of insanity, which he regrets.  And yes, I always let him out and let him join me.

You don't know this when you rescue him. You have some hints but you can't know for sure. So it's okay to murder a whole family so long as you are sorry later?

First, each did only one thing -  Loghain did many.

I'm sure Zevran and Sten have killed lots of people, too.

Each admitted their guilt - Loghain did not.

He does, actually, he says "all of this could rightly be called my fault"

Each was ready to accept their punishment - Jowan and Zev ready to die at my hand, Sten in that cage.  Loghain fights tooth and nail to keep his improper position.

You fight tooth and nail to not get executed, too. Loghain does finally surrender to you, and he gives you the option to accept his surrender or not, just like Zevran does.

Also, none of them are in the position of running a country.  The crimes of Loghain, IMO, are magnified by that.

It is true that I would expect someone to be more careful when running a country. I do think that he should be removed from power, but I don't think he needs to be executed.

[TJPags]

[quote]phaonica wrote...

He poisoned Eamon to save his own butt. Why should he ever be excused for this? Because he only poisoned one person? If he'd poisoned a hundred people, would that be enough to warrant an execution? Why is it okay because he didn't *know* or he didn't *care* how many other people his actions might affect?[/quote]

True.  Sometimes he does, sometimes not.  The number doesn't matter, the crime does, I concede that.  But the circumstances in which the crime was committed do matter, to me.  Someone being coerced to do something at the risk of their own death is not as culpable as someone who does it for other reasons.

[quote]



[quote]Zev is, after all, a hired gun, and he pledges me his personal loyalty - much different then what he did with Loghain. [/quote]

Again, so what? He is completely unapologetic about assassinating people. He only changes his loyalty to save himself, and you also have nearly no reason to trust that he's telling you the truth.[/quote]

He's doing his job when he kills someone, not trying to advance his own goals.  Also, I let him live, and stay near him.  I never have any doubt about my ability to kill him, and frankly, had he done something against my characters wishes, he'd have been killed for it.

But again, yes, he's a killer.  I don't dispute it.

[quote]



[quote]Sten had a moment of insanity, which he regrets.  And yes, I always let him out and let him join me. [/quote]You don't know this when you rescue him. You have some hints but you can't know for sure. So it's okay to murder a whole family so long as you are sorry later?[/quote]

Insanity is often recognized as a mitigating factor in murder.  It is in my head.

[quote]



[quote]First, each did only one thing -  Loghain did many. [/quote]I'm sure Zevran and Sten have killed lots of people, too. [/quote]

What Zev or Sten did before I was in position to judge them, except for the act I AM judging them on - Zev's attempt on my life, Sten's killing of the family - are not at issue.  I have no facts about those things.  For Sten, I'll say that what he may have done while a soldier at war are not for me to judge.  Also, crimes committed by either outside my jurisdiction is not mine to judge.

[quote]


[quote]Each admitted their guilt - Loghain did not. [/quote]He does, actually, he says "all of this could rightly be called my fault"
[/quote]

When?  When I have a knife to his throat after he loses the Landsmeet AND the duel?  Up until the Landsmeet, he accepts no guilt.  IN the Landsmeet, he accepts no guilt.
[quote]

[quote]Each was ready to accept their punishment - Jowan and Zev ready to die at my hand, Sten in that cage.  Loghain fights tooth and nail to keep his improper position. [/quote]You fight tooth and nail to not get executed, too. Loghain does finally surrender to you, and he gives you the option to accept his surrender or not, just like Zevran does.



[quote]Also, none of them are in the position of running a country.  The crimes of Loghain, IMO, are magnified by that.[/quote]
It is true that I would expect someone to be more careful when running a country. I do think that he should be removed from power, but I don't think he needs to be executed.[/quote]

There is no option not to execute Loghain.  The option is execute him, or make him a Grey Warden.  That's it.  He can't be imprisoned, he can't be exiled, he can't be publicly whipped.  Execute, or allow to join the Wardens, which in some eyes is a pardon, since he never faces any penalty for his crimes.  That's the games fault, not mine.

I don't claim to be perfect.  I'm perhaps a bit more bloodthirsty and vengeful then many others, and don't dispute that I take a hard stance on crimes of the magnitude of Loghains.  But really, I have only two options, because of the game, not an infinite amount.  Hell, you get more options dealing with Zev, Jowan, and Sten - kill, let them go, or turn them in.  WIth Loghain, you get two, and that's it.  Blame the game.

Modifié par TJPags, 02 août 2010 - 02:56 .

[Khavos]

phaonica wrote...
Do his motives not matter at all?

Motives matter, but they don't exonerate.  Every brutal regime leader believes what they're doing is necessary and for the greater good.  Stalin didn't execute a hell of a lot of his experienced officers because he was trying to weaken the Red Army.  He didn't send dissidents to gulags because he was trying to be as evil as possible.  

Loghain's no different.  I'm sure he genuinely believed that he needed to poison his political rivals, leave his king to die, take power in what could only be described as a coup, sell his subjects into slavery, hunt down survivors of Ostagar, and prepare for an imaginary war instead of a true Blight.   Simply believing that it's the best thing to do doesn't make it right, or even justifiable.  Plenty of people have done extraordinarily evil things believing that they were absolutely necessary and that they were doing the right thing.  Should we simply let them because their motives are theoretically decent?

[Sarah1281]

jln.francisco wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...
So Loghain should have thrown everything into one giant gamble...t?

I was going to leave this topic but this post left me particularly annoyed.

He should have done what he was told to do.

Because you think it would have beaten the darkspawn/saved Cailan/had more of the army survive or just because Cailan told him to even if it led to everyone dying and the darkspawn not being stopped? 

Modifié par Sarah1281, 02 août 2010 - 04:36 .

[Sarah1281]

jln.francisco wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...
So Loghain should have thrown everything into one giant gamble...t?

I was going to leave this topic but this post left me particularly annoyed.

He should have done what he was told to do.

Because you think it would have beaten the darkspawn/saved Cailan/had more of the army survive or just because Cailan told him to even if it led to everyone dying and the darkspawn not being stopped? 

Because his commanding officer told him to.

I really hate it when people insist that he should have charged just because the King told him to regardless of what the consequences were. If Cailan had ordered them all to surrender to the darkspawn should Loghain have followed that order, too, just because the King gave it? At some point you need to stop being mindlessly loyal and make a judgement call.

[Sarah1281]

jln.francisco wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...
So Loghain should have thrown everything into one giant gamble...t?

I was going to leave this topic but this post left me particularly annoyed.

He should have done what he was told to do.

Because you think it would have beaten the darkspawn/saved Cailan/had more of the army survive or just because Cailan told him to even if it led to everyone dying and the darkspawn not being stopped? 

Because his commanding officer told him to.

I really hate it when people insist that he should have charged just because the King told him to regardless of what the consequences were. If Cailan had ordered them all to surrender to the darkspawn should Loghain have followed that order, too, just because the King gave it? At some point you need to stop being mindlessly loyal and make a judgement call.

See it works like this, risk big and win big, you get lots of shiny medals pinned to your chest. Risk big and let your CO and EVERYONE ELSE under his command die and you get written for treason. It's a simplistic world yes, but it's the world Loghain supposedly comes from. And it's from the knowledge he supposedly gained from this world everyone keeps telling me he was equipped to lead Fereldan.

Are people saying he was equipped to read Ferelden? I've mostly seen people saying that he was a pretty terrible regent as he was more a military man than a politician but that his actions, including his decision to leave Cailan, were done trying to save Ferelden and some of them may even have been the right move. I feel that if Loghain had mindlessly followed every inane order Cailan had given even if he knew that it would lead to the darkspawn destroying all of Ferelden, such as in the 'we surrender' scenario or if he refused to do anything until GW could arrive from Weisshaupt, then he might have avoided treason against the Crown but he'd have committed it against the people of Ferelden which I see as a far greater crime.

[Sarah1281]

I didn't say the orders he gave WERE inane as this really isn't the thread for that kind of argument. If Cailan HAD given inane orders and his strategy was something like 'so the GWs and I will go in and beat the darkspawn while everyone else just watches and then if we need reinfocements Loghain can pick a dozen of his finest troops and back us up' (and yes, I know damn well that that's not actually an order anyone would ever give, I'm not insulting his intelligence here it's just an example) then I don't think 'but he's your King!' would have been reason enough to go do that.



IF Ostagar was unwinnable then I don't think Loghain should have charged no matter who told him to throw the lives of his men away when it wouldn't do any good or even really slow the hoard down. The point of contention, of course, was if Ostagar was, in fact, unwinnable.

[Sarah1281]

jln.francisco wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
IF Ostagar was unwinnable then I don't think Loghain should have charged no matter who told him to throw the lives of his men away when it wouldn't do any good or even really slow the hoard down. The point of contention, of course, was if Ostagar was, in fact, unwinnable.

For you maybe. For me, the thought of a general being hailed as hero for abandoning his political rivals is repulsive. I've given my assessment of the situation and I'd give the odds to Cailan even without Orlais for reinforcements. But seeing as everyone in Thedas actually fights like they did in the middle ages (that is, without a drop of sense) I don't know.

So it would be better for everyone at Ostagar to die and Ferelden to be doomed (worst case scenario) to avoid any potential praise Loghain might have gotten for doing something distasteful?

If Ostagar could have been won and the horde driven back then by all means he should have charged, of course, but if that wasn't the case then it's better that it didn't happen.

[FiliusMartis]

Jowan shouldn't be excused because he attempted to kill one man, but Word of God says that Jowan wasn't trying to kill anyone-- Eamon was intended to be ill until after Loghain confronted Cailan and Eamon could be of no help. He would then be revived. Furthermore, Jowan did not intentionally put personal ideas in front of the safety of the nation against the blight.



Zevran was a slave, not an excuse, but I tend to be a little less harsh on him in light of what amount to brainwashing torture in his past. Again, he doesn't lie about it, confesses outright, and does not put personal ambition ahead of the blight.



Sten's incident was temporary insanity, plain and simple. He confesses it and shows genuine remorse over it. Saying "this could rightly be called my fault" is not a confession. That could later be twisted to 'oh it's my fault I didn't convince Cailan to do this' or something. I want a confession-- one in where he spells out exactly what he did so that he loses all credibility; therefore, if he tries to pull something later he won't have any stance. Without something like that, I simply would not be able to trust him.



Maybe Loghain doesn't deserve death, but in here we're discussing the options of the game and justifications thereof. You must either kill Loghain or initiate him as a brother, someone in your rank who you would need to trust to some extent. Without an open confession, I just don't.