1092 réponses à ce sujet

[maxernst]

Monica21 wrote...

Khavos wrote...
I'll do you one better:

David Gaider wrote...

AndreaDraco wrote...
But what about the poisoning of Arl Eamon through Jowan? Wasn't this decided and accomplished before Ostagar?

Yes, but this wasn't done in preparation for Ostagar. This was done in anticipation that Loghain and Cailan would have a showdown, and Arl Eamon would always solidly be in Cailan's camp. Like I said, Loghain is the sort of man that will ensure his enemies are defeated before they're engaged.

I know this isn't spelled out, but Eamon was never supposed to actually die from the poison. It would keep him sick for a long time -- certainly long enough for Isolde to try all their options and send out knights looking for remedies -- and then, once the confrontation with Cailan was done, Eamon could be given the cure. The elf was sent to Redcliffe to keep an eye on things and watch for news of Eamon getting worse, and if that happened then Loghain could send the cure immediately. Or, at least, that was the intention. If Eamon died in the name of keeping Ferelden safe from Orlais, Loghain wouldn't shed  too many tears over it.

And, while we're at it, I'm completely wrong in thinking that Loghain and - especially - Uldred had a say in the Tower of Ishal being swamped by darkspwan? I don't why, but it always strikes me as odd that Uldred
proposed to use the mages for light the beacon and that the beacon was the signal Loghain was waiting to go away.

Either Loghain or Uldred wanted to be in control of the tower, so that they could make sure the beacon wouldn't be lit -- if it came to that. If the beacon wasn't lit, Loghain couldn't be blamed for not joining the battle in time. But, no, they had no control over the darkspawn and no way of ensuring that the tower was swamped. That was unexpected.

As someone upthread said, it shows that Loghain was open to the possibility of retreating. The fact is though, regicide wasn't exactly his highest priority considering he was trying to prevent Cailan from being on the front lines. .

Since he knew Cailan was not going to pay any attention to him, the only function that statement had was to not raise any suspicions.  He probably said that to Cailan before every battle.  I believe Loghain also suggested waiting for Eamon's troops despite the fact that he had reason to think they weren't coming.

[Monica21]

maxernst wrote...
Since he knew Cailan was not going to pay any attention to him, the only function that statement had was to not raise any suspicions.  He probably said that to Cailan before every battle.  I believe Loghain also suggested waiting for Eamon's troops despite the fact that he had reason to think they weren't coming.

So, I'll reiterate. What do you do with a king who never listens to you and will probably die in battle anyway? You do what you can to ensure a peaceful transition.

[Giggles_Manically]

Didnt Maric make Loghain swear to protect Ferelden from any single person and not let loyalty to anyone or thing overide that?

[TJPags]

Khavos wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

This isn't the first time I've posted in a thread like this, but I never recall Gaider saying "Loghain planned a retreat to keep from looking like a coward." Perhaps you could point me to the correct page so I can interpret it myself.

I'll do you one better:

David Gaider wrote...

AndreaDraco wrote...
But what about the poisoning of Arl Eamon through Jowan? Wasn't this decided and accomplished before Ostagar?

Yes, but this wasn't done in preparation for Ostagar. This was done in anticipation that Loghain and Cailan would have a showdown, and Arl Eamon would always solidly be in Cailan's camp. Like I said, Loghain is the sort of man that will ensure his enemies are defeated before they're engaged.

I know this isn't spelled out, but Eamon was never supposed to actually die from the poison. It would keep him sick for a long time -- certainly long enough for Isolde to try all their options and send out knights looking for remedies -- and then, once the confrontation with Cailan was done, Eamon could be given the cure. The elf was sent to Redcliffe to keep an eye on things and watch for news of Eamon getting worse, and if that happened then Loghain could send the cure immediately. Or, at least, that was the intention. If Eamon died in the name of keeping Ferelden safe from Orlais, Loghain wouldn't shed  too many tears over it.

And, while we're at it, I'm completely wrong in thinking that Loghain and - especially - Uldred had a say in the Tower of Ishal being swamped by darkspwan? I don't why, but it always strikes me as odd that Uldred
proposed to use the mages for light the beacon and that the beacon was the signal Loghain was waiting to go away.

Either Loghain or Uldred wanted to be in control of the tower, so that they could make sure the beacon wouldn't be lit -- if it came to that. If the beacon wasn't lit, Loghain couldn't be blamed for not joining the battle in time. But, no, they had no control over the darkspawn and no way of ensuring that the tower was swamped. That was unexpected.

I don't understand why people keep bringing this up in defense of Loghain.  Gaider said, Gaider said.

Let's review what Gaider said, okay?

I know this isn't spelled out, but Eamon was never supposed to actually die from the poison.

In other words "we never put this into the game  or otherwise gave you or your character ANY information with which to conclude this, but, yea, Eamon wasn't supposed to die"

They meant to let us know that, but didn't - sort of like saying, I MEANT to help that choking person, but didn't, so he died.  Ain't it nice that I saved him?

Next: 

Either Loghain or Uldred wanted to be in control of the tower, so that they could make sure the beacon wouldn't be lit -- if it came to that. If the beacon wasn't lit, Loghain couldn't be blamed for not joining the battle in time. But, no, they had no control over the darkspawn and no way of ensuring that the tower was swamped. That was unexpected.

In other words, "Loghain wanted an EXCUSE to pull his men back and let the rest of the army die, so he wouldn't be blamed, but yes, he did want the option of not carrying out the plan he came up with, which would likely have resulted in Caillan being killed"

How any of this - information they never gave us anywhere, not even in the precious books - or Loghains plan to excape responsiblity for his actions - is supposed to excuse what he does is beyond me.

[Sarah1281]

I don't understand why people keep bringing this up in defense of Loghain. Gaider said, Gaider said.

It's because we assume that the creators would be the authority on their creation and so welcome Word of God. You, of course, can feel free to go with the Death of the Author philosophy.

Modifié par Sarah1281, 13 août 2010 - 01:28 .

[TJPags]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Orlais is an actual, tangible threat. Simply because it doesn't materialize doesn't mean it isn't real: that's the nature of most threats and dangers in the world, actually.

Umm, how are they a threat?

They were coming because THEY WERE INVITED BY THE KING OF FERELDEN!!!!  This was no invasion, being done on their own - they were asked for assistance, and gave it.

Loghain doesn't like that - and what follows is his actions at Ostagar, with Eamon, and thereafter, all to stop something his legitimate king legally did.

And even if they WERE meant as an invasion - they never invaded. 

I'm not exactly trespassing on your property if I stand just on the other side of the property line, am I?  Nope, I'm not - just like there was never any Orlesian invasion, nor even the threat of one.

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I don't understand why people keep bringing this up in defense of Loghain. Gaider said, Gaider said.

It's because we assume that the creators would be the authority on their creation and so welcome Word of God. You, of course, can feel free to go with the Death of the Author philosophy.

Sarah, we've been through this, but let's try it again.

This is not a case where the author is authoritatively giving his opinion of something he actually, you know, wrote.  This is the author telling us something he MEANT to write, but never did.

So, how exactly is that authoritative doctrine on what he DID write?

[Sarah1281]

TJPags wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

I don't understand why people keep bringing this up in defense of Loghain. Gaider said, Gaider said.

It's because we assume that the creators would be the authority on their creation and so welcome Word of God. You, of course, can feel free to go with the Death of the Author philosophy.

Sarah, we've been through this, but let's try it again.

This is not a case where the author is authoritatively giving his opinion of something he actually, you know, wrote.  This is the author telling us something he MEANT to write, but never did.

So, how exactly is that authoritative doctrine on what he DID write?

I know we've been over it before. That's why I only said one sentence in reply to what you wrote which, again, has been brought up before.

A statement regarding a controversy in a series. The Word Of God is considered inarguable because it comes from someone thought to be the ultimate authority, usually a creator or executive producer. Such edicts can even go against events as were broadcast, due to someone (a director, most likely, or a bullpen writer) having got it wrong. Can lead to Creative Differences.
On a similar note, the term Bible is sometimes used for the definitive guidelines for writing an episode of a TV series. Where a show might have a lot of details, there can sometimes be a book which contains rules about the show, backstory, forbidden interactions, etc. that book is referred to as the show's Bible.
In the case of Adaptation Decay, fans look for the Word Of God to settle Fanon disputes, but the Authority may have moved on and doesn't care to respond. In many cases the authority does not feel the need to respond; further pressure simply leads to suggestions fans are Completely Missing The Point and that Viewers Are Morons.
Note that a number of people reject the notion of Word Of God, considering something to be canon only if it appeared in the original source material, and that if the creator wanted a certain fact to be canon that s/he should have included it in the work to begin with. Some people go even further, considering the uncertainty and ambiguity of canon to be a good thing and decry the Word Of God as shackling the imagination and interpretations of the fans — a belief supported by some modern literary criticism, notably in Wimstatt and Beardsley's "The Intentional Fallacy" and Barthes' Death Of The Author essay, both of which argue that the author has no right to control what other people think of his or her work.
It's important to remember that if you disagree with the Word Of God, there's nothing wrong with writing fan fiction that contradicts it, just don't try to foist your preferred Fanon on fans who acknowledge the official canon or on the actual creator of the work.

Even if it's only the opinion of a creator then it still falls under Word of God. If it were actually in the books/game it would be considered canon, not Word of God. You don't have to accept Word of God for it to still exist.

Modifié par Sarah1281, 13 août 2010 - 01:37 .

[TJPags]

So, Sarah, if Hermann Melville gave an interview in which he said he meant Moby Dick to be a shark instead of a whale, but his editor changed it, would you now call it a Shark Story?

If the writer of Gone with the Wind said Rhett was actually supposed to be a legitimate busnessman, not a gambler, would you accept that?

If whoever wrote the Wizard of Oz said the Wicked Witch was actually trying to help Dorothy, would you accept that?

It's clear what Gaider meant.  It's also clear what was actually put in the game.  And in this case, what he meant was NOT put in the game.  So it simply can NOT be canon for THIS GAME.

Modifié par TJPags, 13 août 2010 - 01:42 .

[Sarah1281]

TJPags wrote...

So, Sarah, if Hermann Melville gave an interview in which he said he meant Moby Dick to be a shark instead of a whale, but his editor changed it, would you now call it a Shark Story?

I am not going to get into an argument about whether Word of God should be considered. I believe that it should and you do not. There is nothing wrong with either philosophy. Both philosphies exist and if I want to take what he says to be true then that's perfectly fine.

You have a false analogy anyway. Loghain's motives are not spelled out in the game. The 'Moby Dick is a shark' comparison would probably with the statement 'Loghain has put the past behind him and is eager to welcome to the Orlesians into the country but due to Cailan's feud with the Empress Celene they refuse to come to Ferelden's aid.' Nothing that's been said about Loghain's motivations, opinion or not, has been flat-out contradicted in the game.

It's clear what Gaider meant.  It's also clear what was actually put in the game.  And in this case, what he meant was NOT put in the game.  So it simply can NOT be canon for THIS GAME.

Since it's not outright contradicted, sure it can be. You don't have to see it as that but what is and is not canon is very rarely easily agreed upon by everyone.

Modifié par Sarah1281, 13 août 2010 - 01:45 .

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

They were coming because THEY WERE INVITED BY THE KING OF FERELDEN!!!!  This was no invasion, being done on their own - they were asked for assistance, and gave it.

Loghain doesn't like that - and what follows is his actions at Ostagar, with Eamon, and thereafter, all to stop something his legitimate king legally did.

So in your eyes, does that mean that if a man is king that he can absolutely do nothing wrong because everything he does is legitmate and legal?

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

So, Sarah, if Hermann Melville gave an interview in which he said he meant Moby Dick to be a shark instead of a whale, but his editor changed it, would you now call it a Shark Story?

I am not going to get into an argument about whether Word of God should be considered. I believe that it should and you do not. There is nothing wrong with either philosophy. Both philosphies exist and if I want to take what he says to be true then that's perfectly fine.

You have a false analogy anyway. Loghain's motives are not spelled out in the game. The 'Moby Dick is a shark' comparison would probably with the statement 'Loghain has put the past behind him and is eager to welcome to the Orlesians into the country but due to Cailan's feud with the Empress Celene they refuse to come to Ferelden's aid.' Nothing that's been said about Loghain's motivations, opinion or not, has been flat-out contradicted in the game.

It's clear what Gaider meant.  It's also clear what was actually put in the game.  And in this case, what he meant was NOT put in the game.  So it simply can NOT be canon for THIS GAME.

Since it's not outright contradicted, sure it can be. You don't have to see it as that but what is and is not canon is very rarely easily agreed upon by everyone.

I think my next two analogies are much better, though.

No, it's not contraditcted, but it's also never stated or hinted at!!!  So how can it possibly be something to be considered in this game???

Whatever.  Feel free to base your opinion on things that never actually happened in the game or anywhere else except the creators fantasies.

I'll base my opinion on factual information.

[Sarah1281]

TJPags wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

So, Sarah, if Hermann Melville gave an interview in which he said he meant Moby Dick to be a shark instead of a whale, but his editor changed it, would you now call it a Shark Story?

I am not going to get into an argument about whether Word of God should be considered. I believe that it should and you do not. There is nothing wrong with either philosophy. Both philosphies exist and if I want to take what he says to be true then that's perfectly fine.

You have a false analogy anyway. Loghain's motives are not spelled out in the game. The 'Moby Dick is a shark' comparison would probably with the statement 'Loghain has put the past behind him and is eager to welcome to the Orlesians into the country but due to Cailan's feud with the Empress Celene they refuse to come to Ferelden's aid.' Nothing that's been said about Loghain's motivations, opinion or not, has been flat-out contradicted in the game.

It's clear what Gaider meant.  It's also clear what was actually put in the game.  And in this case, what he meant was NOT put in the game.  So it simply can NOT be canon for THIS GAME.

Since it's not outright contradicted, sure it can be. You don't have to see it as that but what is and is not canon is very rarely easily agreed upon by everyone.

I think my next two analogies are much better, though.

No, it's not contraditcted, but it's also never stated or hinted at!!!  So how can it possibly be something to be considered in this game???

Whatever.  Feel free to base your opinion on things that never actually happened in the game or anywhere else except the creators fantasies.

I'll base my opinion on factual information.

Like I said: you have one philosphy and I have another. I can understand and respect why you only go by what's in the source material so please don't belittle the fact that I'm willing to believe that the creators are the ultimate authority on their creations.

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

They were coming because THEY WERE INVITED BY THE KING OF FERELDEN!!!!  This was no invasion, being done on their own - they were asked for assistance, and gave it.

Loghain doesn't like that - and what follows is his actions at Ostagar, with Eamon, and thereafter, all to stop something his legitimate king legally did.

So in your eyes, does that mean that if a man is king that he can absolutely do nothing wrong because everything he does is legitmate and legal?

Well, yes and no.

In some feudal societies, the king actually COULD do nothing illegal, since he was the one who decided what was and was not legal.  So, in that respect, then anything he does is legal.

Is it always "right"?  Assuming you mean morally right, of course not.  That doesn't change the fact that, as the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not legal, he has the right to order it done, and anyone who doesn't carry out his orders is, technically, guilty of treason.

Example - the King of England certainly had the "right" to impose any tax he wanted on the American colonies.  Those who fought against it were, in the eyes of England, traitors - but as an American, I sure think they were doing the right thing.

As for Caillan spcifically here, do you disagree that the King had the right to request aid from another nation to defend against a Darkspawn invasion that threatened his nation (actual blight or not)?

[FiliusMartis]

Many kings do wrong. However, unless there is another governing body which passed a law declaring something illegal, then the king dictates the law, and his actions are legal. In this case, I do not think that there was a standing law saying negotiations with Orlesian wardens was forbidden.

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

So, Sarah, if Hermann Melville gave an interview in which he said he meant Moby Dick to be a shark instead of a whale, but his editor changed it, would you now call it a Shark Story?

I am not going to get into an argument about whether Word of God should be considered. I believe that it should and you do not. There is nothing wrong with either philosophy. Both philosphies exist and if I want to take what he says to be true then that's perfectly fine.

You have a false analogy anyway. Loghain's motives are not spelled out in the game. The 'Moby Dick is a shark' comparison would probably with the statement 'Loghain has put the past behind him and is eager to welcome to the Orlesians into the country but due to Cailan's feud with the Empress Celene they refuse to come to Ferelden's aid.' Nothing that's been said about Loghain's motivations, opinion or not, has been flat-out contradicted in the game.

It's clear what Gaider meant.  It's also clear what was actually put in the game.  And in this case, what he meant was NOT put in the game.  So it simply can NOT be canon for THIS GAME.

Since it's not outright contradicted, sure it can be. You don't have to see it as that but what is and is not canon is very rarely easily agreed upon by everyone.

I think my next two analogies are much better, though.

No, it's not contraditcted, but it's also never stated or hinted at!!!  So how can it possibly be something to be considered in this game???

Whatever.  Feel free to base your opinion on things that never actually happened in the game or anywhere else except the creators fantasies.

I'll base my opinion on factual information.

Like I said: you have one philosphy and I have another. I can understand and respect why you only go by what's in the source material so please don't belittle the fact that I'm willing to believe that the creators are the ultimate authority on their creations.

My only problem here is that, in the case of the poisoning of Eamon, they didn't actually 'create' the part about him not being intended to die.  They thought it, they considered it, they wanted it, but they didn't actually create that part.

[phaonica]

jln.francisco wrote...

So in your eyes, does that mean that if a man is king that he can absolutely do nothing wrong because everything he does is legitmate and legal?

I cannot speak for TJ but neither can you. His point seems only to be what Orlais was doing was entirely legal and there was no overt hostility behind it. From all appearances they seemed to be acting in Fereldan's best interest.

No, I can't speak for TJ, which is why I phrased that as a question.
And you're right that Cailan asked them for help and they agreed.
From all outward appearence, they did seem to be helping Ferelden.
Orlais has a history of kindly helping nations fight Blights.
And then invading them and taking them over.

[*]In 3:25 Towers, the armies of Orlais and the Tevinter Imperium joined with the Grey Wardens to end the Third Blight. However, the victorious armies proceeded to occupy the territories they had liberated from the darkspawn. Nevarra was taken by Orlais, and only regained independence in 3:65 Towers[4].

Modifié par phaonica, 13 août 2010 - 01:55 .

[maxernst]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I don't understand why people keep bringing this up in defense of Loghain. Gaider said, Gaider said.

It's because we assume that the creators would be the authority on their creation and so welcome Word of God. You, of course, can feel free to go with the Death of the Author philosophy.

Well, yes, I do think that there's a difference between what's actually in a work, and the author's intent. If we discovered a note from Shakespeare to an actor explaining why Hamlet doesn't kill Claudius, would that invalidate every interpretation of Hamlet that doesn't follow it?  Even Gaider himself has noted that (with respect to the DR), their intent was that a Warden would still have to kill the Archdemon, but since it's never explained in the game, it's open to interpretation.

An example of this came up recently when I read that Stanislav Lem didn't like either film version of Solaris, complaining that they didn't get what it was about, that communicating with the alien intelligence.  But I'm guessing that  for most people reading the novel, the most memorable aspect of Solaris was the alien world recreating the protagonist's wife, who had committed suicide, and his relationship with this ghost.  The emotional wallop of that subplot tends to overwhelm everything else, just as it does in the movie versions.  Sometimes an author's creation isn't exactly the same as what they had in mind.

[maxernst]

phaonica wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

So in your eyes, does that mean that if a man is king that he can absolutely do nothing wrong because everything he does is legitmate and legal?

I cannot speak for TJ but neither can you. His point seems only to be what Orlais was doing was entirely legal and there was no overt hostility behind it. From all appearances they seemed to be acting in Fereldan's best interest.

No, I can't speak for TJ, which is why I phrased that as a question.
And you're right that Cailan asked them for help and they agreed.
From all outward appearence, they did seem to be helping Ferelden.
Orlais has a history of kindly helping nations fight Blights.
And then invading them and taking them over.

[*]In 3:25 Towers, the armies of Orlais and the Tevinter Imperium joined with the Grey Wardens to end the Third Blight. However, the victorious armies proceeded to occupy the territories they had liberated from the darkspawn. Nevarra was taken by Orlais, and only regained independence in 3:65 Towers[4].

[*]And how many centuries ago was that?  I suppose that if you had been French in World War I, you would have been outraged that they allowed British troops on French soil?  After all, the British were a traditional enemy that France had fought many, many wars against, and had tried to seize the French throne only five hundred years earlier, and forced a change of government on them again less than a century earlier. 

Modifié par maxernst, 13 août 2010 - 02:04 .

[Khavos]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

They were coming because THEY WERE INVITED BY THE KING OF FERELDEN!!!!  This was no invasion, being done on their own - they were asked for assistance, and gave it.

Loghain doesn't like that - and what follows is his actions at Ostagar, with Eamon, and thereafter, all to stop something his legitimate king legally did.

So in your eyes, does that mean that if a man is king that he can absolutely do nothing wrong because everything he does is legitmate and legal?

Is Ferelden an absolute monarchy? 

Even if not, is staging a coup/regicide still illegal? 

[FiliusMartis]

I don't think anybody's arguing about the Orlesian forces' past. They occupied Ferelden and committed severe atrocities. However, I think the problem here is that there is no evidence that Orlais was planning on repeating this. Loghain percieved Orlais as a threat, and people are free to agree, but there is no direct evidence in the game that Orlais was planning an invasion. They are a possible threat, a perceived threat, but not a definite one.

[Khavos]

Monica21 wrote...

maxernst wrote...
Since he knew Cailan was not going to pay any attention to him, the only function that statement had was to not raise any suspicions.  He probably said that to Cailan before every battle.  I believe Loghain also suggested waiting for Eamon's troops despite the fact that he had reason to think they weren't coming.

So, I'll reiterate. What do you do with a king who never listens to you and will probably die in battle anyway? You do what you can to ensure a peaceful transition.

That's not the way most military command structures, even medieval ones, work. 

[Khavos]

Monica21 wrote...
As someone upthread said, it shows that Loghain was open to the possibility of retreating. The fact is though, regicide wasn't exactly his highest priority considering he was trying to prevent Cailan from being on the front lines. He didn't think much of Cailan's leadership abilities and didn't take kindly to being questioned on strategy, but he did know that he could only do so much before the king got himself killed, at Ostagar or somewhere else. I think Loghain is entirely correct when he tells Anora that Cailan's death was his own doing.

So, what do you do with a young king who's entralled with the idea of glorious battles but doesn't know what it is to really fight? Not much. You do what you can, but Loghain knew that Cailan's chasing of fantasy would get the better of him. Loghain's "what if" preparations were not for him, but for Ferelden. He wanted to ensure Ferelden was safe and stable, but didn't think Cailan would be able to do it. Note, again, that I don't in any way believe that Loghain's intention was to kill Cailan or attempt a coup at Ostagar. He knew Cailan well enough to know that he could only survive by luck and when that ran out, Loghain would have plans in place for what would hopefully be a peaceful transition to Anora's rule.

No, Loghain was certainly planning a coup.  Gaider pointed out that Eamon was moved out of the way, that the alliance with Howe was made, etc., long before Ostagar.  The coup wasn't necessarily going to happen at Ostagar, but it was coming.

He was going to move against Cailan.  That much is clear, and I'm not really sure why it's being argued at this point, as we do have "Word of God" confirmation on it.  

Furthermore, if he was transitioning rule to Anora, he wouldn't have declared himself regent.  That sort of takes her out of the picture as far as ruling goes.  

[TJPags]

FiliusMartis wrote...

I don't think anybody's arguing about the Orlesian forces' past. They occupied Ferelden and committed severe atrocities. However, I think the problem here is that there is no evidence that Orlais was planning on repeating this. Loghain percieved Orlais as a threat, and people are free to agree, but there is no direct evidence in the game that Orlais was planning an invasion. They are a possible threat, a perceived threat, but not a definite one.

Exactly.

Orlais, I'll admit, is ALWAYS a possible threat - it's kind of indicated that their forces are much larger than Fereldens.  They could certainly invade at any time.

But there's no hint that they intend to invade at THIS TIME.  They were asked for aid, and gave it.  When asked to stop, they did.  That's not the actions of someone who intends to invade you.

I'm not an invader if I'm invited into your home, and leave when you ask me to go.