1092 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

TJPags wrote...

Tirigon wrote...


Also, Orlaisians are idiots, is easy to rebel and drive them off again. Tevinter, not. You CAN´T fight bloodmages without the Litany of Andralla.

I don't know - my PC Warden and group killed quite a few blood mages without the Litany . . . .

Yea, cos the bloodmages in the game don´t fit to the lore.

Also, your warden is an immortal god. If he dies, he can simply turn back time to the latest safe point and try again....

[Dean_the_Young]

Since many nations successfully revolted from the Tevinter and drove them back, including un-magical barbarians, lore depiction of blood magic is that it, while powerful, can be overcome.

[TJPags]

Tirigon wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Tirigon wrote...


Also, Orlaisians are idiots, is easy to rebel and drive them off again. Tevinter, not. You CAN´T fight bloodmages without the Litany of Andralla.

I don't know - my PC Warden and group killed quite a few blood mages without the Litany . . . .

Yea, cos the bloodmages in the game don´t fit to the lore.

Also, your warden is an immortal god. If he dies, he can simply turn back time to the latest safe point and try again....

Ahhh, so only Tevinter has the real blood mages?  Everyone else is just a rookie?  Funny, took out those IMperium mages in the alienage without a problem, too. 

[FiliusMartis]

As for trying to fight the Darkspawn with just domestic forces, that's what your Warden and eventual king/queen does. If Alistair or Anora is crowned, they don't send word to the allow the Chevaliers or even just the Orlesian Wardens in.

Because you're put in a situation where you don't have a choice-- there's no time. Before a tactical plan could feasibly be made, the horde is advancing on the capital. You are defending against a siege, not attacking. It's also been pointed out that a huge part of the reason you're successful is that the archdemon pretty much thinks you're a pathetic little nonthreat and gets cocky.

Again, I reiterate, the forces you have are only because the wardens recruited them with the treaties. If Loghain eliminated the wardens like he planned then many of the reinforcements would not have come. The dwarves are a sovereign nation, and the Dalish are a wandering clan. They are not really domestic troops in that they have no loyalty to the monarch of Ferelden.

Modifié par FiliusMartis, 14 août 2010 - 02:43 .

[Monica21]

FiliusMartis wrote...

As for trying to fight the Darkspawn with just domestic forces, that's what your Warden and eventual king/queen does. If Alistair or Anora is crowned, they don't send word to the allow the Chevaliers or even just the Orlesian Wardens in.

Because you're put in a situation where you don't have a choice-- there's no time. Before a tactical plan could feasibly be made, the horde is advancing on the capital. You are defending against a siege, not attacking. It's also been pointed out that a huge part of the reason you're successful is that the archdemon pretty much thinks you're a pathetic little nonthreat and gets cocky.

Sure there's time. It's not a couple days' journey from Denerim to Redcliffe and back again. It's weeks. There's no reason they can't meet you at Redcliffe and no reason they can't march back to Denerim with your army, creating a tactical plan along the way. It doesn't take months to strategize the defense of Denerim. The reason you can't is because the game doesn't give you the option of it. Once the Landsmeet is over, Orlais is essentially forgotten.

Again, I reiterate, the forces you have are only because the wardens recruited them with the treaties. If Loghain eliminated the wardens like he planned then many of the reinforcements would not have come. The dwarves are a sovereign nation, and the Dalish are a wandering clan. They are not really domestic troops in that they have no loyalty to the monarch of Ferelden.

And I agree with this, although I think the Dalish could be persuaded without the treaties. They had just as much to lose as humans.

[Dean_the_Young]

Out of curiosity, what does the 'but Ferelden doesn't have the proper forces to reasonably face a real blight' argument have with anything? Loghaine didn't believe and even Cailen was starting to believe it was just a large raid once he actually saw the darkspawn a couple of times: why are we then judging the validity of their decisions from a position they didn't see from? I don't think anyone's arguing that the Blight wasn't a Blight from an outsider's view point.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 14 août 2010 - 03:04 .

[Khavos]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

You are arguing the Blight is the greater threat with the larger destructive potential. This is true. I agree.

But I (and others?) are arguing that while Orlesian rule would probably never be so catastrophic, it still has the potential to be horriffic on a different scale. Do you disagree?

Consider:

The last Blight prior to DA:O was centuries ago, it's history, but there are still people alive who remember the horrors of the Orlesian occupation. Does it make sense that these people in particular would fear a repeat of Orlais more than a darkspawn invasion where no archdemon has even shown up yet?

I agree that an Orlesian occupation of Ferelden would have the potential to be horrific on a far smaller scale than losing the country to a Blight, yes.  I think that having to have your foot amputated would suck, but dying to gangrenous infection would be far worse, so you cut off the foot.  A lot of people's position here seems to essentially be, "Well, I don't know..."

As for whether it makes sense to fear Orlais more than a darkspawn invasion?  No, I personally don't think it does.  If you have Grey Wardens telling you it's a Blight, then they mean it.  There have been darkspawn raids without a full-on Blight before, and they've never cried wolf.  If a group that exists solely to fight something and has never been wrong about that something's resurgence, nor ever unsuccesful at fighting it, tells me something, I'd be inclined to listen.  

[Khavos]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Out of curiosity, what does the 'but Ferelden doesn't have the proper forces to reasonably face a real blight' argument have with anything? Loghaine didn't believe and even Cailen was starting to believe it was just a large raid once he actually saw the darkspawn a couple of times: why are we then judging the validity of their decisions from a position they didn't see from? I don't think anyone's arguing that the Blight wasn't a Blight from an outsider's view point.

Being given information and choosing to ignore it isn't the same as never having had the information in the first place.  Loghain was told, he chose to trust his own judgment.  He doesn't get let off the hook for essentially disregarding anything that conflicted with his paranoia.  

[Khavos]

phaonica wrote...
I'm just saying that considering what the Orlesians were capable of, height of the resistance or not, I dont think Loghain's story was necessarily in the minority.

So you think the majority of Fereldens were forced off their land and had a family member raped under the Orlesian occupation?  Oooooookay.

Maybe not, but the book didn't do much in the way of explaining why the Orlesians might be occuping except to antagonize the people there. 

Of course it did.  Either you or someone else mentioned that Orlais was levying new taxes.  Not surprising.  More money, larger empire.  Tax revenue and the wealth in general of any given country doesn't stick around if everyone's dead.  If there's any evidence to suggest that Orlais' plan was to kill off Ferelden, I'd love to see it, but I doubt there is any.  Of course the occupation was bad.  Most occupations of hostile territories are.  Let me put it this way: would you rather have your country completely obliterated by nuclear bombardment, or have someone else try to occupy it?  

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Khavos wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

You are arguing the Blight is the greater threat with the larger destructive potential. This is true. I agree.

But I (and others?) are arguing that while Orlesian rule would probably never be so catastrophic, it still has the potential to be horriffic on a different scale. Do you disagree?

Consider:

The last Blight prior to DA:O was centuries ago, it's history, but there are still people alive who remember the horrors of the Orlesian occupation. Does it make sense that these people in particular would fear a repeat of Orlais more than a darkspawn invasion where no archdemon has even shown up yet?

I agree that an Orlesian occupation of Ferelden would have the potential to be horrific on a far smaller scale than losing the country to a Blight, yes.  I think that having to have your foot amputated would suck, but dying to gangrenous infection would be far worse, so you cut off the foot.  A lot of people's position here seems to essentially be, "Well, I don't know..."

I can't speak for everyone of course, but my position is people fear different things on different scales depending on their own personal experience. A person who's suffered at the hands of Orlesians would understandably be more afraid of them than some monsters who (since the last Blight) have never posed a significant threat. It's subjective. Perhaps they *should* fear the darkspawn more, yes, but bad experience often hardwires people to consider what has already personally hurt them to be the more tangible danger. Paranoia and phobias are not things that just go away in the face of logic, unfortunately. :/

As for whether it makes sense to fear Orlais more than a darkspawn invasion?  No, I personally don't think it does.

But does it make sense from the situation I just typed above? I'm not asking whether it's *right* to fear Orlais more, only that you understand why some people would.

If you have Grey Wardens telling you it's a Blight, then they mean it.  There have been darkspawn raids without a full-on Blight before, and they've never cried wolf.  If a group that exists solely to fight something and has never been wrong about that something's resurgence, nor ever unsuccesful at fighting it, tells me something, I'd be inclined to listen. 

I don't know about that. Grey Wardens have had political agendas before (look at Soldier's Peak), and using darkspawn attacks and threats of Blight to get back into the good graces of Ferelden (from which they'd been banished recently)  because they are so obviously 'needed'  sounds like a possible plan.

[Khavos]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
I can't speak for everyone of course, but my position is people fear different things on different scales depending on their own personal experience. A person who's suffered at the hands of Orlesians would understandably be more afraid of them than some monsters who (since the last Blight) have never posed a significant threat. It's subjective. Perhaps they *should* fear the darkspawn more, yes, but bad experience often hardwires people to consider what has already personally hurt them to be the more tangible danger. Paranoia and phobias are not things that just go away in the face of logic, unfortunately. :/

I've myself never suffered through a nuclear holocaust, but I'm able to understand what would happen if one were to occur.  If people have so strong a fear about something that is on such a massively smaller scale that they would choose something orders of magnitude worse simply to avoid that fear, then they shouldn't be leading a country, and certainly not deposing a king and taking power in a coup to do it. 

But does it make sense from the situation I just typed above? I'm not asking whether it's *right* to fear Orlais more, only that you understand why some people would. 

No, and I explained why.  Blights may not have happened recently, but that doesn't mean that people don't know about what happened when they did.

I don't know about that. Grey Wardens have had political agendas before (look at Soldier's Peak), and using darkspawn attacks and threats of Blight to get back into the good graces of Ferelden (from which they'd been banished recently)  because they are so obviously 'needed'  sounds like a possible plan.

Soldier's Peak was a lot more complicated than an individual Grey Warden simply having a political agenda. 

[Monica21]

Khavos wrote...

phaonica wrote...
I'm just saying that considering what the Orlesians were capable of, height of the resistance or not, I dont think Loghain's story was necessarily in the minority.

So you think the majority of Fereldens were forced off their land and had a family member raped under the Orlesian occupation?  Oooooookay.

Probably not the majority, but if you take Loghain's family as an example, quite a lot of freeholders suffered under Orlesian rule. Nobles either joined the rebellion and fought off Orlesian forces or cozied up to the king to keep their lands.

Maybe not, but the book didn't do much in the way of explaining why the Orlesians might be occuping except to antagonize the people there. 

Of course it did.  Either you or someone else mentioned that Orlais was levying new taxes.  Not surprising.  More money, larger empire.  Tax revenue and the wealth in general of any given country doesn't stick around if everyone's dead.  If there's any evidence to suggest that Orlais' plan was to kill off Ferelden, I'd love to see it, but I doubt there is any.  Of course the occupation was bad.  Most occupations of hostile territories are.  Let me put it this way: would you rather have your country completely obliterated by nuclear bombardment, or have someone else try to occupy it? 

I was the one who mentioned the taxes. Orlais didn't levy taxes to generate income, they did it to drive freeholders off their own land to make room for Orlesians. Loghain and his father were living in a fairly large camp with people under similar circumstances, so it's reasonable to assume there were camps like this around Ferelden.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I don't know about that. Grey Wardens have had political agendas before (look at Soldier's Peak), and using darkspawn attacks and threats of Blight to get back into the good graces of Ferelden (from which they'd been banished recently)  because they are so obviously 'needed'  sounds like a possible plan.

It's very reasonable, and something Anora mentions. Granted it's in her own interest, but the unwritten Warden rule of staying out of politics and then trying to put a Warden on the throne can seem pretty suspicious, coming not long after they'd been kicked out.

Modifié par Monica21, 14 août 2010 - 05:09 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Khavos wrote...

I've myself never suffered through a nuclear holocaust, but I'm able to understand what would happen if one were to occur.  If people have so strong a fear about something that is on such a massively smaller scale that they would choose something orders of magnitude worse simply to avoid that fear, then they shouldn't be leading a country, and certainly not deposing a king and taking power in a coup to do it. 

Unfortuately, 'should not' means little after the event has happened.

People have faults, fears, biased opinions and *passionate* hates, whether or not they are in positions of power.

Blights may not have happened recently, but that doesn't mean that people don't know about what happened when they did.

History often repeats because people choose to ignore what happened, or they don't believe it'll ever happen again. If you believe everyone is sensible and level-headed...well...Dragon Age isn't *that* much of a fantasy world.

Soldier's Peak was a lot more complicated than an individual Grey Warden simply having a political agenda. 

Yet the fact remains Grey Wardens were not universally trusted for reasons such as this. They were banished for treason, so you cannot claim that no one in Ferelden has reason to be suspicious of their motives.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 14 août 2010 - 05:51 .

[phaonica]

Khavos wrote...

phaonica wrote...
I'm just saying that considering what the Orlesians were capable of, height of the resistance or not, I dont think Loghain's story was necessarily in the minority.

So you think the majority of Fereldens were forced off their land and had a family member raped under the Orlesian occupation?  Oooooookay.

No, I don't mean that literally. I mean that I think the majority of Fereldens were severly abused by the Orlesians in some way.

Of course it did.  Either you or someone else mentioned that Orlais was levying new taxes. 

Here is what the Stolen Throne says about Orlesian taxes on the Fereldens during the occupation:

The Orlesians didn't believe in anyone owning land but their fancy, painted-up nobility, so it came as no surprise that they didn't look favorably on Ferelden's freemen. An extra "tribute" tax was concocted by the Orlesian Emperor, and any freeman who couldn't afford it had their lands confiscated. Loghain's father had managed to scrape together enough to pay the tax the first year, so naturally it was decided the tax could stand to be even higher. The next year, his father refused to pay, and when the soldiers came, they determined that not only was the famhold forfeit, but his father should be arrested for tax evasion. Loghain's family resisted, so now they lived out in the Ferelden wilds, banding together with other desperate souls to eke out a living however they could.  (pg22) 

Also:

And I have no problem understanding that.  What I do have a problem with is a rather delusional leader making that decision for every single last one of his people, especially when it's a false decision in the first place: Loghain's decision was between certain death and potential oppression.  He chose a path that would have led to certain death. 

Are you saying that not asking the Orlesians for help equates to certain death? I don't believe that. I think his choice was between potential death and potential oppression.  He wanted to look for some way for Ferelden to win without Orlesian help. The Warden does the exact same thing. Yes, the Warden had the treaties, but does that not mean that the Warden did attempt to pursue a plan that did not require the Orlesians? 

[Khavos]

phaonica wrote...
No, I don't mean that literally. I mean that I think the majority of Fereldens were severly abused by the Orlesians in some way.

I don't.

Here is what the Stolen Throne says about Orlesian taxes on the Fereldens during the occupation:

That indicates, to me, that they wanted what I've been saying: to expand their empire, their holdings.  Land's worthless without peasants to work it, so killing them all makes no sense.  

Are you saying that not asking the Orlesians for help equates to certain death? I don't believe that. I think his choice was between potential death and potential oppression.  He wanted to look for some way for Ferelden to win without Orlesian help. The Warden does the exact same thing. Yes, the Warden had the treaties, but does that not mean that the Warden did attempt to pursue a plan that did not require the Orlesians? 

I'm saying that not choosing to address the Blight equals certain death, and the way all previous Blights were addressed was to create a coalition army and lose quite a lot of it in the long, bloody struggle to get to the archdemon.  Cailan, at least, recognized that, as did Duncan.  As for the Warden not getting Orlesian help...I believe that's a conversation option with Alistair when you first enter Lothering.  You can suggest it, and he says he wouldn't even know where to start.  You're told, basically, that it's not really a feasible option due to time constraints, and with nothing else around to contradict that, you have to take Alistair at his word.  You also don't technically have the authority to authorize Orlesians to march into Ferelden anyway. 

[phaonica]

Khavos wrote...

phaonica wrote...
No, I don't mean that literally. I mean that I think the majority of Fereldens were severly abused by the Orlesians in some way.

I don't.

Can you back up that statement with something? Something that implies that the fugitive camps were rare, or that the villagers weren't living in fear, or that it was hard to recruit into the rebel army because people were living comfortably?  

That indicates, to me, that they wanted what I've been saying: to expand their empire, their holdings.  Land's worthless without peasants to work it, so killing them all makes no sense.  

It says to me that they were purposefully taxing the people beyond their means to force them off their land.

Are you saying that not asking the Orlesians for help equates to certain death? I don't believe that. I think his choice was between potential death and potential oppression.  He wanted to look for some way for Ferelden to win without Orlesian help. The Warden does the exact same thing. Yes, the Warden had the treaties, but does that not mean that the Warden did attempt to pursue a plan that did not require the Orlesians? 

I'm saying that not choosing to address the Blight equals certain death, 

To me when you say "not choosing to address" means ignore. Is Loghain ignoring the Blight altogether? He's positioning armies, and he's appealing to the same domestic armies that the Warden is.

As for the Warden not getting Orlesian help...I believe that's a conversation option with Alistair when you first enter Lothering.  You can suggest it, and he says he wouldn't even know where to start.  You're told, basically, that it's not really a feasible option due to time constraints, and with nothing else around to contradict that, you have to take Alistair at his word. 

Fair enough, but if it's so well known that we need to unite several nations to defeat a blight, is it not a stupid plan to at least *try* to get in touch with the Orlesians?

Alistair doesn't think they have time to contact the Orlesians or they don't have the ability to bring them into Ferelden even if they did contact them, so they come up with a plan which does not include the Orlesians. Alistair and the Warden think that there is hope of winning, even without the Orlesians, even though everyone knows you need several nations worth of armies to defeat a Blight. So why is it that if Loghain tries to make a plan that doesn't include Orlesians, he is delusional and had doomed everyone because everyone knows you need several nations to defeat a Blight?

Modifié par phaonica, 14 août 2010 - 07:19 .

[Monica21]

Khavos wrote...
That indicates, to me, that they wanted what I've been saying: to expand their empire, their holdings.  Land's worthless without peasants to work it, so killing them all makes no sense.

Having peasants and serfs work land is a quite a bit different from deliberately administering a tax so high that freeholders can't afford to pay it.

[Khavos]

phaonica wrote...

Can you back up that statement with something? Something that implies that the fugitive camps were rare, or that the villagers weren't living in fear, or that it was hard to recruit into the rebel army because people were living comfortably? 

I didn't say that people were living comfortably.  You said that the majority of the people - over half the population of Ferelden - suffered severe abuse at the hands of Orlais.  You have just as much data as I do, which is, of course, none.  

Can you back up the statement that the majority of Fereldens were severely abused at the hands of the Orlesians?  Of course not.  I'm sure Gaider didn't provide statistics. 

It says to me that they were purposefully taxing the people beyond their means to force them off their land.

Some of them, yes.  The Wiki states that "freeholder" is the term for any land-owner in Ferelden, and that "a few" commoners are freeholders.  The majority of the country didn't have land to lose in the first place. 

To me when you say "not choosing to address" means ignore. Is Loghain ignoring the Blight altogether? He's positioning armies, and he's appealing to the same domestic armies that the Warden is.

Yes, he is ignoring the Blight.  For all we know he's appealing to the same domestic armies as the Warden for assistance in the civil war resulting from his power grab, not to fight the Blight.  He refuses to believe it's a Blight, remember?  If you can recall a point in the game where he actively campaigns against the darkspawn after he gets rid of Cailan, refresh my memory, because I can't.  

Fair enough, but if it's so well known that we need to unite several nations to defeat a blight, is it not a stupid plan to at least *try* to get in touch with the Orlesians?

Alistair doesn't think they have time to contact the Orlesians or they don't have the ability to bring them into Ferelden even if they did contact them, so they come up with a plan which does not include the Orlesians. Alistair and the Warden think that there is hope of winning, even without the Orlesians, even though everyone knows you need several nations worth of armies to defeat a Blight. So why is it that if Loghain tries to make a plan that doesn't include Orlesians, he is delusional and had doomed everyone because everyone knows you need several nations to defeat a Blight?

Because, again, Alistair and the Warden are working with very limited options.  Neither are the king nor regent of Ferelden; neither can say, "Sure, guys, come on in!"  You and I can't negotiate on behalf of our countries, because we're not the heads of state or appointed representatives.  Alistair also mentions that the Orlesian Wardens will get curious when they don't hear from Duncan; even if you fail, the cavalry's eventually going to ride in.  Alistair's assessment doesn't seem to be, "We're the last hope of Ferelden, and if we don't save it, nothing will!" but rather, "We're the only two Wardens currently in Ferelden, it won't hurt to try."   

[Khavos]

Monica21 wrote...

Khavos wrote...
That indicates, to me, that they wanted what I've been saying: to expand their empire, their holdings.  Land's worthless without peasants to work it, so killing them all makes no sense.

Having peasants and serfs work land is a quite a bit different from deliberately administering a tax so high that freeholders can't afford to pay it.

There's absolutely nothing to indicate that the majority of Ferelden isn't composed of landless peasants that I'm aware of. . 

[CalJones]

No. You have two options: kill him (Alistair stays) or make him a warden (Alistair leaves). If Alistair is hardened and you have already got him and Anora to agree to marry (this is done at Eamon's estate before the Landsmeet) then he will remain in Fereldan as king, but he will still get angry and leave your party as he cannot bear to see Loghain become a warden.

[Tirigon]

TJPags wrote...


Ahhh, so only Tevinter has the real blood mages?  Everyone else is just a rookie?  Funny, took out those IMperium mages in the alienage without a problem, too. 

You don´t get me.

Thing is, if the Bloodmages in the game were as powerful as the lore describes them, even the weakest one would be a game-ender for everyone except another bloodmage, a rogue who manages to instakill him from stealth or a templar if he´s lucky.

On the other hand, a bloodmage character would be able to skip half the game as he could simply mind-control Loghain, Harrowmont etc.... and make them do what he wants.

To be honest, I think they shouldn´t have bloodmages or any other really strong stuff in a game. They can NEVER represent it appropriately without breaking the game.


Another good example for this problem comes from StarCraft II: In the campaign the Zerg are described as almost unstoppable and overrun multiple planets within a few hours, yet in the missions you play and in multiplayer they are rather easily to defeat (imo they are even the weakest of the 3 races). Simply because a Zerg-race that is autowin as soon as you pick them would break the game.

Modifié par Tirigon, 14 août 2010 - 10:55 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Tirigon wrote...

Thing is, if the Bloodmages in the game were as powerful as the lore describes them, even the weakest one would be a game-ender for everyone except another bloodmage, a rogue who manages to instakill him from stealth or a templar if he´s lucky.

On the other hand, a bloodmage character would be able to skip half the game as he could simply mind-control Loghain, Harrowmont etc.... and make them do what he wants.

To be honest, I think they shouldn´t have bloodmages or any other really strong stuff in a game. They can NEVER represent it appropriately without breaking the game.

Blood Mages aren't all powerful. They can do some terrible and insidious things, but their spells do have resistance checks.

You do raise an interesting point, though...how awesome would it have been if a blood mage character could waltz through the game attempting to Blood Control people into cooperating? Alistair probably would have stabbed you in the face, but the concept is a cool one.

[Tirigon]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Blood Mages aren't all powerful. They can do some terrible and insidious things, but their spells do have resistance checks.

Well, the resistance checks are, again, there for the sake of gameplay, not lore. If you could render bloodmages useless by wearing your + 50% spell resist amulet the chantry wouldn´t have to combat them, they could simply distribute free amulets among the people and laugh about any bloodmage who tries to do something:devil::devil:


However, according to the lore it is not like that. The codex states that even templars can only win against a bloodmage if they outnumber him, are well-prepared and are ready to accept that some (maybe even most) of them WILL die. And templars are trained all their life to battle abominations and bloodmages. Ordinary soldiers wouldn´t even stand a chance if they outnumber a bloodmage 100 to 1

Or why do you think this Orlaisian bloodmage in Awakenings could enslave an entire village?

[CalJones]

Well, she was actually an abomination...