1092 réponses à ce sujet

[Khavos]

Monica21 wrote...
No, Loghain is not planning a coup. And I'm at least arguing it because Gaider never said "Loghain planned a coup." What he did say was "Loghain made plans to get out of Ostagar alive should the worst happen." Considering how ridiculous I thought Cailan during the five minutes of dialogue I had with him, I'd have thought something similar. I would also have thought "this king is going to be the death of us all so I better have my ducks in a row before that happens." Cailan's insistence on being on the front lines is what got him killed, not Loghain's strategy.

When did Gaider say that Loghain made an alliance with Howe before Ostagar? If so, that's recent and contradicts previous statements. He has said that Howe attached himself to Loghain after Ostagar and Loghain let himself be influenced by Howe, but never that they were more than barely acquainted before Ostagar.

Declaring himself regent is not declaring himself king. He has no intention of becoming king and even tells you that when you meet him in Denerim. A regent rules in the absence of someone on the throne, and that's all. It doesn't take Anora out of the game at all. He's preserving the throne for her until the nobles can agree at a Landsmeet.

Not quite, on any of that.

David Gaider wrote...

I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me for offering some input on something with incomplete knowledge, but my impression is that there is a question about Loghain's intentions prior to Ostagar? If so, I can shed some light on what my thoughts regarding it are. You can take them for what it's worth -- if there's no evidence of something in the game it's debateable whether that can be taken as truth, after all.

In my mind, Loghain did not go to Ostagar expecting to walk away from the battle. It was clear, however, that he and Cailan were already having profound disagreements -- mainly centering on Cailan's overtures to Orlais. Loghain was obviously moving to confront Cailan in some way, undercutting his access to allies and so
forth. But did Loghain plan on killing Cailan? No, I don't think that. I think he was doing what Loghain does, and trying to ensure that when that moment of confrontation with Cailan came the battle was already won.

That said, he had been fighting the darkspawn for some time in the south with Cailan there, and had already seen what Cailan was capable of. I think he made preparations prior to that last battle for the possibility that he would have to walk away. He once made a promise to Maric that he would never allow one man to be more important than the Kingdom -- and in his eyes Cailan was recklessly endangering both himself and his kingdom. Whether that error in judgement condemns him right there is up to you.

There is also the matter of his association with Arl Howe, someone Loghain evidences great distaste for -- but politics makes for strange bedfellows, as they say. In my mind, Loghain always thought that Howe was an ally
completely under his control and was probably never able to admit even to himself how much Howe was able to manipulate him. Howe acted on a great number of things without Loghain's involvement or approval, but by
then the two were already in bed together -- Loghain was committed, as it were, and after Ostagar doubly so. For all his faults, Loghain is not a man to waver once a decision is made -- good or bad. The only reason
he gives up, in the end, is because he sees that there is someone else beside himself who can save Ferelden, someone who hasn't made the mistakes he has. The burden does not rest entirely on his shoulders --
which, yes, is how he feels.

Hope that makes sense, although I understand the topic of conversation here has gone in a lot of different directions. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png

Now here's where you squirm and say that Loghain was removing Cailan's allies before this move against him because he didn't want them around to spoil the calm discussion over tea and cakes. 

Modifié par Khavos, 13 août 2010 - 03:11 .

[Monica21]

Khavos wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Yes, technically that would have been treason, as much as the Revolution was technically treason in the first place. However, if your choices are 1) treason or 2) potentially undoing the efforts of your Revolution, I'm inclined to side with the traitors who want to maintain their independence.

Potential isn't reality.  It's just potential.  A buddy and I got in a fight in a bar once.  We potentially could've been killed, the other guys were damn big dudes.  Should we have grabbed knives and stabbed them to death because they potentially could've killed us?

First, you're really stretching the analogy, but I think you know that. Second, unless the dudes had a history of getting in bar fights and killing people, no you should not have stabbed them to death. If they did have such a history, I imagine you would have stayed far away and called the cops. Historical context actually is important.

[phaonica]

Khavos wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Khavos wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Yes, technically that would have been treason, as much as the Revolution was technically treason in the first place. However, if your choices are 1) treason or 2) potentially undoing the efforts of your Revolution, I'm inclined to side with the traitors who want to maintain their independence.

Potential isn't reality.  It's just potential.  A buddy and I got in a fight in a bar once.  We potentially could've been killed, the other guys were damn big dudes.  Should we have grabbed knives and stabbed them to death because they potentially could've killed us?

I think potential is too an aspect of reality. If you get drunk and drive your car around, you have the potential to wreck the car and hurt yourself or someone else. Does that mean the potential is not real?

Having the potential to do something doesn't mean that I will do it.  You have the potential to randomly start murdering people - should we arrest you now? 

I understand what you're saying, that the word "potential" can cover quite a large range of risk. I only used the word because I didn't want to imply that I thought that that second option I posted "2) potentially undoing the efforts of your Revolution" was a definite result. Whether or not someone might choose one option over the other might be influenced by how much risk they perceive in that potential.

[Dean_the_Young]

Khavos wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
No, Loghain is not planning a coup. And I'm at least arguing it because Gaider never said "Loghain planned a coup." What he did say was "Loghain made plans to get out of Ostagar alive should the worst happen." Considering how ridiculous I thought Cailan during the five minutes of dialogue I had with him, I'd have thought something similar. I would also have thought "this king is going to be the death of us all so I better have my ducks in a row before that happens." Cailan's insistence on being on the front lines is what got him killed, not Loghain's strategy.

When did Gaider say that Loghain made an alliance with Howe before Ostagar? If so, that's recent and contradicts previous statements. He has said that Howe attached himself to Loghain after Ostagar and Loghain let himself be influenced by Howe, but never that they were more than barely acquainted before Ostagar.

Declaring himself regent is not declaring himself king. He has no intention of becoming king and even tells you that when you meet him in Denerim. A regent rules in the absence of someone on the throne, and that's all. It doesn't take Anora out of the game at all. He's preserving the throne for her until the nobles can agree at a Landsmeet.

Not quite, on any of that.

David Gaider wrote...

I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me for offering some input on something with incomplete knowledge, but my impression is that there is a question about Loghain's intentions prior to Ostagar? If so, I can shed some light on what my thoughts regarding it are. You can take them for what it's worth -- if there's no evidence of something in the game it's debateable whether that can be taken as truth, after all.

In my mind, Loghain did not go to Ostagar expecting to walk away from the battle. It was clear, however, that he and Cailan were already having profound disagreements -- mainly centering on Cailan's overtures to Orlais. Loghain was obviously moving to confront Cailan in some way, undercutting his access to allies and so
forth. But did Loghain plan on killing Cailan? No, I don't think that. I think he was doing what Loghain does, and trying to ensure that when that moment of confrontation with Cailan came the battle was already won.

That said, he had been fighting the darkspawn for some time in the south with Cailan there, and had already seen what Cailan was capable of. I think he made preparations prior to that last battle for the possibility that he would have to walk away. He once made a promise to Maric that he would never allow one man to be more important than the Kingdom -- and in his eyes Cailan was recklessly endangering both himself and his kingdom. Whether that error in judgement condemns him right there is up to you.

There is also the matter of his association with Arl Howe, someone Loghain evidences great distaste for -- but politics makes for strange bedfellows, as they say. In my mind, Loghain always thought that Howe was an ally
completely under his control and was probably never able to admit even to himself how much Howe was able to manipulate him. Howe acted on a great number of things without Loghain's involvement or approval, but by
then the two were already in bed together -- Loghain was committed, as it were, and after Ostagar doubly so. For all his faults, Loghain is not a man to waver once a decision is made -- good or bad. The only reason
he gives up, in the end, is because he sees that there is someone else beside himself who can save Ferelden, someone who hasn't made the mistakes he has. The burden does not rest entirely on his shoulders --
which, yes, is how he feels.

Hope that makes sense, although I understand the topic of conversation here has gone in a lot of different directions. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png

Now here's where you squirm and say that Loghain was removing Cailan's allies before this move against him because he didn't want them around to spoil the calm discussion over tea and cakes. 

That quote is far more indicative of 'Revolt of the Admirals... With Poison For The Generals' than 'Coup.'

[Khavos]

Monica21 wrote...
First, you're really stretching the analogy, but I think you know that. Second, unless the dudes had a history of getting in bar fights and killing people, no you should not have stabbed them to death. If they did have such a history, I imagine you would have stayed far away and called the cops. Historical context actually is important.

Not at all.  The potential for being killed in that situation is much more immediate than the potential for this hypothetical Orlesian invasion, so the risk is even greater.  Also, we didn't ask them to list their criminal history, so I can't address the second part of your assertion.

As for historical context, yes, it certainly is important.  Historical context shows us, as I've said, that a Blight is far worse a threat than anything Orlais ever could have done to Ferelden.  The Blight takes root in Ferelden, and the land literally dies due to the taint.  You won't be able to grow anything on it.  The animals will mutate.  Every single living being will either become tainted or die.  The Blight will not occupy, it will simply destroy.  Everything.

Now, that was the reality Loghain was facing.  The pure potential he preferred to deal with instead of addressing that reality was that the Orlesians, who actually had their **** together when it came to fighting Blights, might invade.  Any conceivable cost-benefit analysis comes up with, "Yeah, let them and anyone else who wants to come in."

[Sarah1281]

Khavos wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
First, you're really stretching the analogy, but I think you know that. Second, unless the dudes had a history of getting in bar fights and killing people, no you should not have stabbed them to death. If they did have such a history, I imagine you would have stayed far away and called the cops. Historical context actually is important.

Not at all.  The potential for being killed in that situation is much more immediate than the potential for this hypothetical Orlesian invasion, so the risk is even greater.  Also, we didn't ask them to list their criminal history, so I can't address the second part of your assertion.

As for historical context, yes, it certainly is important.  Historical context shows us, as I've said, that a Blight is far worse a threat than anything Orlais ever could have done to Ferelden.  The Blight takes root in Ferelden, and the land literally dies due to the taint.  You won't be able to grow anything on it.  The animals will mutate.  Every single living being will either become tainted or die.  The Blight will not occupy, it will simply destroy.  Everything.

Now, that was the reality Loghain was facing.  The pure potential he preferred to deal with instead of addressing that reality was that the Orlesians, who actually had their **** together when it came to fighting Blights, might invade.  Any conceivable cost-benefit analysis comes up with, "Yeah, let them and anyone else who wants to come in."

I'll agree that the Blight was the more pressing threat but to say that just because the Orlesians did not invade there was not a real threat (and it has been said here although I don't remember if you or someone else said that) is absurd. People aren't psychic and Loghain had no way of knowing that they wouldn't invade.

[Khavos]

Sarah1281 wrote...
I'll agree that the Blight was the more pressing threat but to say that just because the Orlesians did not invade there was not a real threat (and it has been said here although I don't remember if you or someone else said that) is absurd. People aren't psychic and Loghain had no way of knowing that they wouldn't invade.

So?

Being invaded would suck.  It wouldn't suck anywhere near as much as being overrun by the Blight.  Loghain might prefer to die instead of being ruled by Orlesians, but making that decision for every man, woman, and child in his country is absurd.  

Edit: Also, not "pressing", as in it was simply the more immediate threat.  "Exponentially more serious" is the proper adjective.

Modifié par Khavos, 13 août 2010 - 03:33 .

[Sarah1281]

Khavos wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
I'll agree that the Blight was the more pressing threat but to say that just because the Orlesians did not invade there was not a real threat (and it has been said here although I don't remember if you or someone else said that) is absurd. People aren't psychic and Loghain had no way of knowing that they wouldn't invade.

So?

Being invaded would suck.  It wouldn't suck anywhere near as much as being overrun by the Blight.  Loghain might prefer to die instead of being ruled by Orlesians, but making that decision for every man, woman, and child in his country is absurd.  

I'm not arguing that point. I just can't stand it when people say 'Loghain was focused on the Orlesians and we know by metagaming that they did not invade so therefore it's stupid for Loghain to think that there was any risk.' He did focus on the lesser threat, I know, but just because they did not invade doesn't mean that there wasn't reason to think they might have.

[Monica21]

Khavos wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
No, Loghain is not planning a coup. And I'm at least arguing it because Gaider never said "Loghain planned a coup." What he did say was "Loghain made plans to get out of Ostagar alive should the worst happen." Considering how ridiculous I thought Cailan during the five minutes of dialogue I had with him, I'd have thought something similar. I would also have thought "this king is going to be the death of us all so I better have my ducks in a row before that happens." Cailan's insistence on being on the front lines is what got him killed, not Loghain's strategy.

When did Gaider say that Loghain made an alliance with Howe before Ostagar? If so, that's recent and contradicts previous statements. He has said that Howe attached himself to Loghain after Ostagar and Loghain let himself be influenced by Howe, but never that they were more than barely acquainted before Ostagar.

Declaring himself regent is not declaring himself king. He has no intention of becoming king and even tells you that when you meet him in Denerim. A regent rules in the absence of someone on the throne, and that's all. It doesn't take Anora out of the game at all. He's preserving the throne for her until the nobles can agree at a Landsmeet.

Not quite, on any of that.

David Gaider wrote...

I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me for offering some input on something with incomplete knowledge, but my impression is that there is a question about Loghain's intentions prior to Ostagar? If so, I can shed some light on what my thoughts regarding it are. You can take them for what it's worth -- if there's no evidence of something in the game it's debateable whether that can be taken as truth, after all.

In my mind, Loghain did not go to Ostagar expecting to walk away from the battle. It was clear, however, that he and Cailan were already having profound disagreements -- mainly centering on Cailan's overtures to Orlais. Loghain was obviously moving to confront Cailan in some way, undercutting his access to allies and so
forth. But did Loghain plan on killing Cailan? No, I don't think that. I think he was doing what Loghain does, and trying to ensure that when that moment of confrontation with Cailan came the battle was already won.

That said, he had been fighting the darkspawn for some time in the south with Cailan there, and had already seen what Cailan was capable of. I think he made preparations prior to that last battle for the possibility that he would have to walk away. He once made a promise to Maric that he would never allow one man to be more important than the Kingdom -- and in his eyes Cailan was recklessly endangering both himself and his kingdom. Whether that error in judgement condemns him right there is up to you.

There is also the matter of his association with Arl Howe, someone Loghain evidences great distaste for -- but politics makes for strange bedfellows, as they say. In my mind, Loghain always thought that Howe was an ally
completely under his control and was probably never able to admit even to himself how much Howe was able to manipulate him. Howe acted on a great number of things without Loghain's involvement or approval, but by
then the two were already in bed together -- Loghain was committed, as it were, and after Ostagar doubly so. For all his faults, Loghain is not a man to waver once a decision is made -- good or bad. The only reason
he gives up, in the end, is because he sees that there is someone else beside himself who can save Ferelden, someone who hasn't made the mistakes he has. The burden does not rest entirely on his shoulders --
which, yes, is how he feels.

Hope that makes sense, although I understand the topic of conversation here has gone in a lot of different directions. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png

Now here's where you squirm and say that Loghain was removing Cailan's allies before this move against him because he didn't want them around to spoil the calm discussion over tea and cakes. 

The only squirming I'm doing is in frustration that you can only read Gaider's remarks to mean what you want them to mean. You see "Loghain was obviously moving to confront Cailan in some way, undercutting his access to allies and so forth. But did Loghain plan on killing Cailan? No, I don't think that." and think "coup" and "regicide." I never said Loghain wasn't undercutting Cailan. He was, and I think he had good reason to do so. At some point one was going to confront the other and "when that moment of confrontation came" Loghain was doing his best to make sure he won. Very Sun Tzu of him. That doesn't mean he had specific plans of a coup or what would happen and when, just that when it did happen he would be the one victorious.

And yes, Loghain did see how reckless Cailan could be. Throwing oneself into battle seems glorious, but ends badly when you have ogre spittle all over you and your broken body is lying in heap. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I really don't care if Loghain had plans to clear the way for Anora and consolidate power. My opinion is that Loghain knew Cailan would lead the country down a dark road and Loghain didn't care to travel it with him. Loghain knew Cailan well enough to know he'd probably get himself killed. As I said, get your ducks in a row before that happens.

If you think that means I believed there would be tea and cake, then you've misunderstood everything I've said. But if you also think Loghain wanted or intended civil war, then you're just not paying attention. Loghain's plans were to put Anora on the throne after the darkspawn were defeated and after he had the support of the nobles. If the beacon hadn't been lit and if it weren't for a few pesky Grey Wardens who knew that the darkspawn invasion was more than an invasion, he'd have succeeded.

To be honest, I think Loghain's intentions are mostly correct. He wants to save Ferelden and he knows Cailan can't do it. The problem is that he's focused on Orlais and not the darkspawn. If I were in his shoes I'm not sure I would be letting a single Orlesian into the country.

[Khavos]

Sarah1281 wrote...
 I'm not arguing that point. I just can't stand it when people say 'Loghain was focused on the Orlesians and we know by metagaming that they did not invade so therefore it's stupid for Loghain to think that there was any risk.' He did focus on the lesser threat, I know, but just because they did not invade doesn't mean that there wasn't reason to think they might have.

And that's fine.  My point is, thinking they might invade is still no reason to not get their aid.  The Fifth Blight was ended before it even began; all previous Blights were very long affairs, where huge armies were necessary.  The Grey Wardens have never in their history cried wolf, and they asserted that this was a Blight.  Refusing the assistance of a large, combat-ready, competent neighboring army (no matter what they might do after the Blight's put down) AND refusing to ever focus on the Blight itself shows him to be a far worse ruler than Cailan ever could have been.  He was willing to sacrifice the life of every single Ferelden just to indulge his paranoia.  

[Khavos]

Monica21 wrote...
If you think that means I believed there would be tea and cake, then you've misunderstood everything I've said. But if you also think Loghain wanted or intended civil war, then you're just not paying attention. Loghain's plans were to put Anora on the throne after the darkspawn were defeated and after he had the support of the nobles. If the beacon hadn't been lit and if it weren't for a few pesky Grey Wardens who knew that the darkspawn invasion was more than an invasion, he'd have succeeded.

And of course unquestionably doomed Ferelden.

To be honest, I think Loghain's intentions are mostly correct. He wants to save Ferelden and he knows Cailan can't do it. The problem is that he's focused on Orlais and not the darkspawn. If I were in his shoes I'm not sure I would be letting a single Orlesian into the country.

Then it's probably a good thing you're neither politician nor general, I suppose.  They often have to work with people they don't like to get important things done.  In that, at least, Cailan seems far more politically savvy than Loghain.  Better to make a friend out of a large, potentially threatening neighbor than antagonize them.  

Also, he doesn't know Cailan can't do it; he believes Cailan can't.  The reality of the whole situation is, Loghain did exactly no better, and in fact much worse, than Cailan ever did. 

Modifié par Khavos, 13 août 2010 - 03:42 .

[Monica21]

Khavos wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
First, you're really stretching the analogy, but I think you know that. Second, unless the dudes had a history of getting in bar fights and killing people, no you should not have stabbed them to death. If they did have such a history, I imagine you would have stayed far away and called the cops. Historical context actually is important.

Not at all.  The potential for being killed in that situation is much more immediate than the potential for this hypothetical Orlesian invasion, so the risk is even greater.  Also, we didn't ask them to list their criminal history, so I can't address the second part of your assertion.

As for historical context, yes, it certainly is important.  Historical context shows us, as I've said, that a Blight is far worse a threat than anything Orlais ever could have done to Ferelden.  The Blight takes root in Ferelden, and the land literally dies due to the taint.  You won't be able to grow anything on it.  The animals will mutate.  Every single living being will either become tainted or die.  The Blight will not occupy, it will simply destroy.  Everything.

Now, that was the reality Loghain was facing.  The pure potential he preferred to deal with instead of addressing that reality was that the Orlesians, who actually had their **** together when it came to fighting Blights, might invade.  Any conceivable cost-benefit analysis comes up with, "Yeah, let them and anyone else who wants to come in."

First, Loghain didn't know it was a Blight. No one but the Wardens knew it was a Blight. Loghain is operating without all the information and that's an inherently bad thing to do. It can't be helped though, since almost all of them died. Second, if Loghain did know it was a Blight, I doubt he would have invited Orlais into Ferelden.

The Orlesians didn't have their **** together when it came to figthting blights any more than anyone else. It's not like there's a rule book. The last blight was 500 years ago. The only thing Orlais has is more Wardens. And I said this the very first time I posted in this thread, but no one really remembers why the Wardens are important. They only know that they are, but they don't know that they sense darkspawn and they certainly don't know that they dream about the Archdemon. It's been too long since the last blight for anyone to remember.

[Khavos]

Monica21 wrote...
First, Loghain didn't know it was a Blight. No one but the Wardens knew it was a Blight. Loghain is operating without all the information and that's an inherently bad thing to do. It can't be helped though, since almost all of them died. Second, if Loghain did know it was a Blight, I doubt he would have invited Orlais into Ferelden.

Loghain was told, and told by people who have never been wrong and never cried wolf.  He chose not to believe them.  He had access to the information, he chose not to trust it.  

The Orlesians didn't have their **** together when it came to figthting blights any more than anyone else. It's not like there's a rule book. The last blight was 500 years ago. The only thing Orlais has is more Wardens. And I said this the very first time I posted in this thread, but no one really remembers why the Wardens are important. They only know that they are, but they don't know that they sense darkspawn and they certainly don't know that they dream about the Archdemon. It's been too long since the last blight for anyone to remember.

They got four legions of chevaliers to the Ferelden border while Ferelden was still dicking around with a Landsmeet to figure out who was actually going to lead them against whatever enemy they chose to fight, be it actual Blight or phantom Orlesian invasion. 

No one remembers exactly why the Wardens are important, except that it's common knowledge the first Blight didn't end until the Wardens were formed, and every Blight ended since has been ended by a Warden.  It's been a long time since the last Blight, but I didn't get the sense that anyone wasn't aware of what, precisely, Blights did.  

[Monica21]

[quote]Khavos wrote...

[quote]Monica21 wrote...
If you think that means I believed there would be tea and cake, then you've misunderstood everything I've said. But if you also think Loghain wanted or intended civil war, then you're just not paying attention. Loghain's plans were to put Anora on the throne after the darkspawn were defeated and after he had the support of the nobles. If the beacon hadn't been lit and if it weren't for a few pesky Grey Wardens who knew that the darkspawn invasion was more than an invasion, he'd have succeeded. [/quote]

And of course unquestionably doomed Ferelden.[/quote]
This is the third and last time I'll say this. Loghain didn't know the true threat and he's not the only one who did. Even Cailan was fairly cavalier about the possibility of an Archdemon appearing. He absolutely would have doomed Ferelden, but quite possibly no more than the boy-king who was willing to allow Orlais back into Ferelden. Say Orlais and Ferelden defeat the Blight together, but most of Ferelden is decimated and its people are dead. Do you think a country like Orlais would just leave and let them rebuild, especially after being so defeated so soundly just 30 years before? I don't, and perhaps that's another place where we differ.

[quote]To be honest, I think Loghain's intentions are mostly correct. He wants to save Ferelden and he knows Cailan can't do it. The problem is that he's focused on Orlais and not the darkspawn. If I were in his shoes I'm not sure I would be letting a single Orlesian into the country.
[/quote]

Then it's probably a good thing you're neither politician nor general, I suppose.  They often have to work with people they don't like to get important things done.  In that, at least, Cailan seems far more politically savvy than Loghain.  Better to make a friend out of a large, potentially threatening neighbor than antagonize them.  [/quote]
Cailan is not politically savvy. He's a child in a man's body. His wife is politically savvy, and those who know agree that she's the one who really rules Ferelden. What, exactly, did Loghain do to antagonize Orlais other than beat them, and why must it be assumed that Orlais is needed?

[Monica21]

Khavos wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
First, Loghain didn't know it was a Blight. No one but the Wardens knew it was a Blight. Loghain is operating without all the information and that's an inherently bad thing to do. It can't be helped though, since almost all of them died. Second, if Loghain did know it was a Blight, I doubt he would have invited Orlais into Ferelden.

Loghain was told, and told by people who have never been wrong and never cried wolf.  He chose not to believe them.  He had access to the information, he chose not to trust it.

He had access to a very small group of people telling him something he couldn't see. Loghain needs to see to believe.

The Orlesians didn't have their **** together when it came to figthting blights any more than anyone else. It's not like there's a rule book. The last blight was 500 years ago. The only thing Orlais has is more Wardens. And I said this the very first time I posted in this thread, but no one really remembers why the Wardens are important. They only know that they are, but they don't know that they sense darkspawn and they certainly don't know that they dream about the Archdemon. It's been too long since the last blight for anyone to remember.

They got four legions of chevaliers to the Ferelden border while Ferelden was still dicking around with a Landsmeet to figure out who was actually going to lead them against whatever enemy they chose to fight, be it actual Blight or phantom Orlesian invasion. 

No one remembers exactly why the Wardens are important, except that it's common knowledge the first Blight didn't end until the Wardens were formed, and every Blight ended since has been ended by a Warden.  It's been a long time since the last Blight, but I didn't get the sense that anyone wasn't aware of what, precisely, Blights did.

That doesn't mean they have their **** together and are a Blight defeating machine. It only means they weren't in the middle of a civil war.

And again, never said no one didn't know what Blights did. What I said was that no one remembered why the Grey Wardens were important. When there hasn't been a Blight for a few centuries and there haven't been any Grey Wardens in the country except for the last few decades, it's easy to forget. Why is that even one of your points?

Modifié par Monica21, 13 août 2010 - 03:54 .

[Khavos]

Monica21 wrote...
This is the third and last time I'll say this. Loghain didn't know the true threat and he's not the only one who did. Even Cailan was fairly cavalier about the possibility of an Archdemon appearing. He absolutely would have doomed Ferelden, but quite possibly no more than the boy-king who was willing to allow Orlais back into Ferelden. Say Orlais and Ferelden defeat the Blight together, but most of Ferelden is decimated and its people are dead. Do you think a country like Orlais would just leave and let them rebuild, especially after being so defeated so soundly just 30 years before? I don't, and perhaps that's another place where we differ.

Loghain didn't know the true threat, but not because he wasn't told. 

As for whether or not Orlais would not have occupied in your scenario?  I don't know.  I also don't care.  Even if they did, they wouldn't kill every living Ferelden and make the land incapable of ever being worked again, the way a Blight would.  Most Fereldens would probably prefer to live under Orlesian rule than have their entire family and all of their countrymen cease to exist.  

Cailan is not politically savvy. He's a child in a man's body. His wife is politically savvy, and those who know agree that she's the one who really rules Ferelden. What, exactly, did Loghain do to antagonize Orlais other than beat them, and why must it be assumed that Orlais is needed?

A lot of assertions, no factual basis.

As far as antagonizing Orlais?  He refused to deal with the Blight that started in his own lands, and prevented them from dealing with it as well.  The Blight would not have just destroyed Ferelden and gone home, it would have moved on to Orlais, and would have been much, much stronger when it got there. 

As for why it must be assumed Orlais is needed?  History.  Every previous Blight lasted at least a decade and required huge coalition armies to take down.  Archdemons don't normally make themselves available for death so early in a Blight; it's strongly hinted that the only reason the Archdemon appears at all in Ferelden is because of how few Wardens it has, especially after Ostagar.  

[Khavos]

Monica21 wrote...
He had access to a very small group of people telling him something he couldn't see. Loghain needs to see to believe.

Good for Loghain.  He was given the information he needed; he disregarded it. 

That doesn't mean they have their **** together and are a Blight defeating machine. It only means they weren't in the middle of a civil war.

And that they clearly listen to the Wardens stationed in their country, which, to me, would probably be a large component of having your **** together when it comes to fighting Blights.

And again, never said no one didn't know what Blights did. What I said was that no one remembered why the Grey Wardens were important. When there hasn't been a Blight for a few centuries and there haven't been any Grey Wardens in the country except for the last few decades, it's easy to forget. Why is that even one of your points?

Because it's relevant.  Everyone outside of Ferelden that we're aware of within the game takes the threat of the Blight as seriously as possible; it's only (some) Fereldens who don't. 

[Monica21]

[quote]Khavos wrote...
As for whether or not Orlais would not have occupied in your scenario?  I don't know.  I also don't care.  Even if they did, they wouldn't kill every living Ferelden and make the land incapable of ever being worked again, the way a Blight would.  Most Fereldens would probably prefer to live under Orlesian rule than have their entire family and all of their countrymen cease to exist. [/quote]
Might want to ask some of the Fereldens who survived the occupation that. You know, like Loghain.

[quote]Cailan is not politically savvy. He's a child in a man's body. His wife is politically savvy, and those who know agree that she's the one who really rules Ferelden. What, exactly, did Loghain do to antagonize Orlais other than beat them, and why must it be assumed that Orlais is needed?

[/quote]

A lot of assertions, no factual basis.[/quote]
Which part is an assertion? There are several occasions when you hear that Anora is the power behind the throne. Just talking to Anora proves that she is.

[quote]As far as antagonizing Orlais?  He refused to deal with the Blight that started in his own lands, and prevented them from dealing with it as well.  The Blight would not have just destroyed Ferelden and gone home, it would have moved on to Orlais, and would have been much, much stronger when it got there. 

As for why it must be assumed Orlais is needed?  History.  Every previous Blight lasted at least a decade and required huge coalition armies to take down.  Archdemons don't normally make themselves available for death so early in a Blight; it's strongly hinted that the only reason the Archdemon appears at all in Ferelden is because of how few Wardens it has, especially after Ostagar.  [/quote]
So, his refusal to let Chevaliers into Ferelden is antagonizing? So, what, they're going to fight Ferelden and the Blight because they got all pissy that the nation they occupied, pillaged and raped wouldn't let them back in? Come on. I'm sure even Celene understands why Loghain wouldn't let her forces in.

I never said it was A Bad Idea to have a coalition force. I said Loghain's mistrust of Orlais is entirely understandable given his history with them and his lack of knowledge about the nature of the Blight.

[Monica21]

Khavos wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
He had access to a very small group of people telling him something he couldn't see. Loghain needs to see to believe.

Good for Loghain.  He was given the information he needed; he disregarded it.

And I never said that was a good idea.

And that they clearly listen to the Wardens stationed in their country, which, to me, would probably be a large component of having your **** together when it comes to fighting Blights.

Much more useful when you've never kicked Wardens out of your country and aren't as unfamiliar with them as Fereldens who aren't named Maric are.

Because it's relevant.  Everyone outside of Ferelden that we're aware of within the game takes the threat of the Blight as seriously as possible; it's only (some) Fereldens who don't. 

Loghain doesn't dispute the potential effect a Blight can have on a countryside. What he doesn't know is that it's a Blight. Key difference. Not relevant.

[maxernst]

Monica21 wrote...

Khavos wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
First, you're really stretching the analogy, but I think you know that. Second, unless the dudes had a history of getting in bar fights and killing people, no you should not have stabbed them to death. If they did have such a history, I imagine you would have stayed far away and called the cops. Historical context actually is important.

Not at all.  The potential for being killed in that situation is much more immediate than the potential for this hypothetical Orlesian invasion, so the risk is even greater.  Also, we didn't ask them to list their criminal history, so I can't address the second part of your assertion.

As for historical context, yes, it certainly is important.  Historical context shows us, as I've said, that a Blight is far worse a threat than anything Orlais ever could have done to Ferelden.  The Blight takes root in Ferelden, and the land literally dies due to the taint.  You won't be able to grow anything on it.  The animals will mutate.  Every single living being will either become tainted or die.  The Blight will not occupy, it will simply destroy.  Everything.

Now, that was the reality Loghain was facing.  The pure potential he preferred to deal with instead of addressing that reality was that the Orlesians, who actually had their **** together when it came to fighting Blights, might invade.  Any conceivable cost-benefit analysis comes up with, "Yeah, let them and anyone else who wants to come in."

First, Loghain didn't know it was a Blight. No one but the Wardens knew it was a Blight. Loghain is operating without all the information and that's an inherently bad thing to do. It can't be helped though, since almost all of them died. Second, if Loghain did know it was a Blight, I doubt he would have invited Orlais into Ferelden.

Duncan told him it was a blight. Loghain was operating without all the information by choice.  No one forced him to try and murder the PC & Alistair.  No one forced him to prevent the Orlesian wardens from coming or even just asking them some questions at the border.  Any wise person would have at least kept the idea that

Why does Loghain lie and say that the Wardens betrayed Cailan at Ostagar?  He could have simply said they faced too large a force and he retreated to preserve the army.  All he accomplished with the lie was to damage his own credibility.  I still think the far more probable reason for going after the remaining Wardens is to eliminate Alistair.  It makes a lot more sense for him to be willing to work with the Warden after the losing the duel, if he never actually believed you were working for Orlais in the first place. 

[Khavos]

Monica21 wrote...
Might want to ask some of the Fereldens who survived the occupation that. You know, like Loghain.

I don't think even Loghain would say that he would choose to have every single Ferelden killed and the entire country turned into a Blight-land rather than being occupied by Orlais.  They're orders of magnitude apart, and there's always a chance that you can someday kick out occupiers.

Which part is an assertion? There are several occasions when you hear that Anora is the power behind the throne. Just talking to Anora proves that she is.

That Cailan is not politically savvy, that he is a child in a man's body. 

So, his refusal to let Chevaliers into Ferelden is antagonizing? So, what, they're going to fight Ferelden and the Blight because they got all pissy that the nation they occupied, pillaged and raped wouldn't let them back in? Come on. I'm sure even Celene understands why Loghain wouldn't let her forces in.

Yes.  If there was some massive disaster up in Canada that was slowly overwhelming the country and sure to move down south and do the same to us once it was done with our neighbor to the north, and the Canadians flat-out refused to deal with it, I have very little doubt that we would go in and try to stop it before it got to us. 

I never said it was A Bad Idea to have a coalition force. I said Loghain's mistrust of Orlais is entirely understandable given his history with them and his lack of knowledge about the nature of the Blight.

I've never said Loghain's mistrust of Orlais wasn't understandable, I've said it's irrelevant to the reality of his situation.  Also, please stop claiming that he lacked knowledge about the nature of the Blight; he refused to believe the people who tried to pass on that knowledge. 

[Khavos]

maxernst wrote...

Why does Loghain lie and say that the Wardens betrayed Cailan at Ostagar? 

That's actually a really good question.  Do any of the Loghain apologists have an answer?