1092 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarah1281]

FiliusMartis wrote...

Forgive my ignorance on the toolset and its workings, but are these notes only available for conversations with the warden, or is the full extent of the dialogue in there? I ask this because I wonder what kind of notes one would find in the scene where Loghain actually orders the retreat, specifically his exchange with Cauthrien.

Loghain: Sound the retreat. (VO: He is a commander giving an order that he knows will mean the death of many, very grim -- but it must be done)
Cauthrien: But... what about the king? Should we not-- (VO: Shocked and uncertain)
Loghain: Do as I command. (VO: Tersely, she will do as he commands or he WILL KILL HER)
Cauthrien: Pull out! All of you, let's move! (VO: She is turning to shout orders to her men)
Soldier: My lord! The signal is lit and Loghain's forces have fled. We are betrayed! (VO: Shocked and horrified)

By 'it's not true but he believes it to be' I take it that there was a chance that he might have been able to save Cailan but, not being psychic, Loghain misjudged his chances of getting the King out. Of course, that's not to say that saving Cailan wouldn't have cost most of Loghain's army. There might not have been a civil war with Cailan still around (but Loghain was planning on confronting him so who knows) but there would be less troops available regardless.

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

But both are pretty damning, don't you think?

"is it not true that there a chance to reach Caillan"  Since his actual words imply that there was NO chance, the only way that could be not true is if there WAS a chance.

"is it not true that Loghain would have fought to save him if there were even a slight chance of success"  Which mean, even if there WAS a chance of success, he would not have tried to save him.

So, either he there WAS a chance, which Loghain didn't take (although he says he would have) or he wouldn't have taken the chance had it been there.

I think that even if he thought he could save Cailan, he might have thought that it wasn't worth the loss of the soldiers. So that would equate to even if there was a chance, he chose not to take it. Which is exactly what Maric told him to do.

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...


I think that even if he thought he could save Cailan, he might have thought that it wasn't worth the loss of the soldiers. So that would equate to even if there was a chance, he chose not to take it. Which is exactly what Maric told him to do.

Well, saving the king would not only have saved the king but also the army that was with him. Maric would have agreed with Loghain deserting his king to save the soldiers, but definitely NOT with deserting an entire army.

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

But both are pretty damning, don't you think?

"is it not true that there a chance to reach Caillan"  Since his actual words imply that there was NO chance, the only way that could be not true is if there WAS a chance.

"is it not true that Loghain would have fought to save him if there were even a slight chance of success"  Which mean, even if there WAS a chance of success, he would not have tried to save him.

So, either he there WAS a chance, which Loghain didn't take (although he says he would have) or he wouldn't have taken the chance had it been there.

I think that even if he thought he could save Cailan, he might have thought that it wasn't worth the loss of the soldiers. So that would equate to even if there was a chance, he chose not to take it. Which is exactly what Maric told him to do.

Now wait.  Wait wait wait wait.

Caillan is his King.  Does a general not have an absolute obligation to attempt to save his King's life?  Does a noble not have an obligation to save his Liege's life?

I assume that, in Ferelden as in virtually EVERY midievel nation in our own world, oaths of fealty are given.  I assume that oaths are given by generals.  Some part of that oath MUST at least imply an obligation to defend the life of the liege.

From the posted quote earlier, that's what Maric told Loghain about himSELF- and I'd still say Loghain would have the obligation to do it.

This is not Maric - it's Caillan.  Caillan said nothing of the kind.

[TJPags]

I'm learning a bit about the PC version toolset, thanks to some aid, and this nugget was found:

From the battle planning meeting prior to the Ostagar battle:

Caillan:  Thank you, Loghain.  I cannot wait for that glorious moment!  The Grey Wardens battle beside the King of Ferelden to stem the tide of evil!  (VO:said with excitement, almost gushing at the prospect of glorious battle)
Loghain:  Yes Caillan.  A glorious moment for us all.  (VO: said a bit ominously.  Loghain knows that the coming battle is going to mean Caillan's death when he betrays the King.)

If this doesn't solve the whole "did Loghain intend to betray Caillan?" debate, what more do you need????

[phaonica]

Yeah, the VO notes straight up say:



Loghain: Yes, Cailan. A glorious moment for us all. (VO: Said a bit ominously, Loghain knows that the coming battle is going to mean Cailan's death when he betrays the King)



So unless someone wants to argue the value of VO as cannon. There you go.

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

From the posted quote earlier, that's what Maric told Loghain about himSELF- and I'd still say Loghain would have the obligation to do it.

This is not Maric - it's Caillan.  Caillan said nothing of the kind.

I couldn't quote pages and pages of context for that line. Loghain was arguing that Maric is the king, that they should be doing everything in their power to save him. Maric says that his being king means absolutely nothing if they lose the army because without Maric, they could still win, but without he armies, Ferelden is lost.

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

phaonica wrote...


I think that even if he thought he could save Cailan, he might have thought that it wasn't worth the loss of the soldiers. So that would equate to even if there was a chance, he chose not to take it. Which is exactly what Maric told him to do.

Well, saving the king would not only have saved the king but also the army that was with him. Maric would have agreed with Loghain deserting his king to save the soldiers, but definitely NOT with deserting an entire army.

Not if it were a matter of charging so a small squad could get Cailan out of there and retreating which Loghain's words on the matter make it sound like he's talking about.

Now wait.  Wait wait wait wait.

Caillan is his King.  Does a general not have an absolute obligation to attempt to save his King's life?  Does a noble not have an obligation to save his Liege's life?

I assume that, in Ferelden as in virtually EVERY midievel nation in our own world, oaths of fealty are given.  I assume that oaths are given by generals.  Some part of that oath MUST at least imply an obligation to defend the life of the liege.

From the posted quote earlier, that's what Maric told Loghain about himSELF- and I'd still say Loghain would have the obligation to do it.

This is not Maric - it's Caillan.  Caillan said nothing of the kind.

Maric told him not to put any one person at all above Ferelden. Loghain did that. Cailan may not have approved but Maric wasn't just talking about himself.

And we get it: you're not supposed to leave your King to die. It's not legal to do so. Yes Loghain was 'supposed' to charge and get everyone else killed and doom Ferelden. He didn't and regardless of what the medieval mindset would make of his choices, we're trying to decide if it was necessary or at least whether it created a better outcome then sacrificing all of his men to save one person would have been.

It would have been very noble indeed if Loghain had died and had all of his men die in a failed attempt to rescue his King but it would also be a stupid move. Loghain's never been an honor before reason type anyway.

[Tirigon]

phaonica wrote...

Yeah, the VO notes straight up say:

Loghain: Yes, Cailan. A glorious moment for us all. (VO: Said a bit ominously, Loghain knows that the coming battle is going to mean Cailan's death when he betrays the King)

So unless someone wants to argue the value of VO as cannon. There you go.

Erm, are you the phaonica I know? Last time you were absolutley sure Loghain did the right thing and not betray anyone....

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

From the posted quote earlier, that's what Maric told Loghain about himSELF- and I'd still say Loghain would have the obligation to do it.

This is not Maric - it's Caillan.  Caillan said nothing of the kind.

I couldn't quote pages and pages of context for that line. Loghain was arguing that Maric is the king, that they should be doing everything in their power to save him. Maric says that his being king means absolutely nothing if they lose the army because without Maric, they could still win, but without he armies, Ferelden is lost.

Fair enough, as I don't expect you to post pages of the book for me, but . . . .what about the rest of what I said, about the obligation to do so?

Don't you think there's something in that?

[TJPags]

jln.francisco wrote...

While I agree that Loghain intended to betray Cailan and that the battle at Ostagar was winnable, I don't like using director notes to establish anything but the character's state of mind. And even then I would much rather go off the actor's portrayal of them, what they say, how the people around them react and the situation they are in. Because actors often take roles one direction while the director intended something completely different, I don't feel they should be relied upon much.

Oh, look, I agree with you as far as it goes.  I prefer to rely on what is actually said, how it is said, etc.

I posted what I did for all those who have, since I joined this board and the Loghain discussions in particular, who have been using Dave Gaider quotes (and vague ones, IMO) to excuse Loghain's behavior, and talk about how they can't be argued against.

These are the notes given to the actor, telling him how he is supposed to say the line, what the character is thinking when he does, what his motivation is - which is likely very important for an actor doing a voice over for a game.

So this note is telling the actor that his character INTENDS to betray the King, so that the actor can choose how to relay that with his tone, inflection, etc.  It has to be accepted as fact, no?

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

phaonica wrote...


I think that even if he thought he could save Cailan, he might have thought that it wasn't worth the loss of the soldiers. So that would equate to even if there was a chance, he chose not to take it. Which is exactly what Maric told him to do.

Well, saving the king would not only have saved the king but also the army that was with him. Maric would have agreed with Loghain deserting his king to save the soldiers, but definitely NOT with deserting an entire army.

Not if it were a matter of charging so a small squad could get Cailan out of there and retreating which Loghain's words on the matter make it sound like he's talking about.

Now wait.  Wait wait wait wait.

Caillan is his King.  Does a general not have an absolute obligation to attempt to save his King's life?  Does a noble not have an obligation to save his Liege's life?

I assume that, in Ferelden as in virtually EVERY midievel nation in our own world, oaths of fealty are given.  I assume that oaths are given by generals.  Some part of that oath MUST at least imply an obligation to defend the life of the liege.

From the posted quote earlier, that's what Maric told Loghain about himSELF- and I'd still say Loghain would have the obligation to do it.

This is not Maric - it's Caillan.  Caillan said nothing of the kind.

Maric told him not to put any one person at all above Ferelden. Loghain did that. Cailan may not have approved but Maric wasn't just talking about himself.

And we get it: you're not supposed to leave your King to die. It's not legal to do so. Yes Loghain was 'supposed' to charge and get everyone else killed and doom Ferelden. He didn't and regardless of what the medieval mindset would make of his choices, we're trying to decide if it was necessary or at least whether it created a better outcome then sacrificing all of his men to save one person would have been.

It would have been very noble indeed if Loghain had died and had all of his men die in a failed attempt to rescue his King but it would also be a stupid move. Loghain's never been an honor before reason type anyway.

Maric's dead.  Caillan is the King.  If Caillan wanted to take away Loghain's title (which he likely got from Maric) he could.  If Caillan wanted to exile Loghain to the furthest reaches of Ferelden, he could.  If Caillan wanted to have Loghain dress in women's dresses, he could.

The point?  New king, new rules.  I doubt very much that doing something so unexpected, and excusing it with "well, the last king told me to" will go very far.  Try missing a deadline at a new job, and telling your new boss "well, my last boss didn't care if my work was late".  I don't think that'll fly very far.

However, you did at least admit Loghain broke the law.  So, thanks.  Break the law = treason = death.

[Monica21]

phaonica wrote...

Yeah, the VO notes straight up say:

Loghain: Yes, Cailan. A glorious moment for us all. (VO: Said a bit ominously, Loghain knows that the coming battle is going to mean Cailan's death when he betrays the King)

So unless someone wants to argue the value of VO as cannon. There you go.

Not only am I confused by the VO notes, but I'm confused by the devs stating that Loghain knew their forces couldn't win at Ostagar because the size of the horde was larger than they anticipated. I don't have the quote because it's in a much older thread, but it has been stated. And why would Loghain try to talk Cailan out of battling at the front lines if he'd planned on betraying him?

And I'm also confused by Gaider's apparent contradiction about exactly what the tax was supposed to do. Drive away freeholders or the "elites?" Or is canon just changing to suit whim or because they forgot about VO notes?

[phaonica]

Tirigon wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Yeah, the VO notes straight up say:

Loghain: Yes, Cailan. A glorious moment for us all. (VO: Said a bit ominously, Loghain knows that the coming battle is going to mean Cailan's death when he betrays the King)

So unless someone wants to argue the value of VO as cannon. There you go.

Erm, are you the phaonica I know? Last time you were absolutley sure Loghain did the right thing and not betray anyone....

I know, right? LoL. But it's written right there pretty clearly. I might still argue that DG has said that Loghain didn't make the decision until right there at the beacon, but the VO clearly says he *knows* the coming battle will mean Cailan's death. So I could say that what DG says trumps what's in the VOs and that VOs aren't cannon because they're just supposed to be directive and not taken literally. It doesn't change my mind about sparing Loghain, mind you, and I still think he did the right thing. It just means that his plan to leave Cailan had more to do with the Orlesians and less to do with whether or not he could be saved on the field.

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

From the posted quote earlier, that's what Maric told Loghain about himSELF- and I'd still say Loghain would have the obligation to do it.

This is not Maric - it's Caillan.  Caillan said nothing of the kind.

I couldn't quote pages and pages of context for that line. Loghain was arguing that Maric is the king, that they should be doing everything in their power to save him. Maric says that his being king means absolutely nothing if they lose the army because without Maric, they could still win, but without he armies, Ferelden is lost.

Fair enough, as I don't expect you to post pages of the book for me, but . . . .what about the rest of what I said, about the obligation to do so?

Don't you think there's something in that?

No. I think that Loghain's primary obligation was to his country, not the king. The medieval mindset might say differently, but I don't think the context of the game is utterly faithful to what we know about the medieval mindset, either. The country and the king are not the same thing.

[Sarah1281]

TJPags wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

phaonica wrote...


I think that even if he thought he could save Cailan, he might have thought that it wasn't worth the loss of the soldiers. So that would equate to even if there was a chance, he chose not to take it. Which is exactly what Maric told him to do.

Well, saving the king would not only have saved the king but also the army that was with him. Maric would have agreed with Loghain deserting his king to save the soldiers, but definitely NOT with deserting an entire army.

Not if it were a matter of charging so a small squad could get Cailan out of there and retreating which Loghain's words on the matter make it sound like he's talking about.

Now wait.  Wait wait wait wait.

Caillan is his King.  Does a general not have an absolute obligation to attempt to save his King's life?  Does a noble not have an obligation to save his Liege's life?

I assume that, in Ferelden as in virtually EVERY midievel nation in our own world, oaths of fealty are given.  I assume that oaths are given by generals.  Some part of that oath MUST at least imply an obligation to defend the life of the liege.

From the posted quote earlier, that's what Maric told Loghain about himSELF- and I'd still say Loghain would have the obligation to do it.

This is not Maric - it's Caillan.  Caillan said nothing of the kind.

Maric told him not to put any one person at all above Ferelden. Loghain did that. Cailan may not have approved but Maric wasn't just talking about himself.

And we get it: you're not supposed to leave your King to die. It's not legal to do so. Yes Loghain was 'supposed' to charge and get everyone else killed and doom Ferelden. He didn't and regardless of what the medieval mindset would make of his choices, we're trying to decide if it was necessary or at least whether it created a better outcome then sacrificing all of his men to save one person would have been.

It would have been very noble indeed if Loghain had died and had all of his men die in a failed attempt to rescue his King but it would also be a stupid move. Loghain's never been an honor before reason type anyway.

Maric's dead.  Caillan is the King.  If Caillan wanted to take away Loghain's title (which he likely got from Maric) he could.  If Caillan wanted to exile Loghain to the furthest reaches of Ferelden, he could.  If Caillan wanted to have Loghain dress in women's dresses, he could.

The point?  New king, new rules.  I doubt very much that doing something so unexpected, and excusing it with "well, the last king told me to" will go very far.  Try missing a deadline at a new job, and telling your new boss "well, my last boss didn't care if my work was late".  I don't think that'll fly very far.

However, you did at least admit Loghain broke the law.  So, thanks.  Break the law = treason = death.

You know what else breaks the law? The CE 1) Possessing a weapon 2) Breaking into the Arl's estate 3) Killing humans 4) Killing a bann. We should really put that treasonous **** down, huh?

We're all aware Loghain broke the law here. The question remains whether it was justified, necessary, ect. Cailan could, as you mentioned, do whatever he liked. If he re-outlawd GW (like Loghain did) should they all wait quietly at the border for Ferelden to be destroyed or should they break the law and fight? The fact that Loghain broke the law in not swooping in to resuce Cailan is actually the least questionable thing about the entire event and so I really hate it when people are like 'Oh, he broke the law. He's a bad man. Let's kill him.' You break all sorts of laws in game and no one ever seems to cry for their Warden to be put to death for such treasonous acts as being in Ferelden, murdering an Arl, murdering a Bann, breaking into a private noble estate, anything Slim has you do...

Maric told Loghain to promise him to never put one person before the entire nation. The fact that you say 'new King, new rules' means that you're tacitly agreeing that saving Cailan would be risking the entire nation, just so you know. Maric didn't make a law or public policy saying 'never put one person before the country' and so it's not like Cailan can change it. Cailan can't say 'yeah, just so you know I'm the King now so any unofficial promises between friends that you made are now null and void.' It's just something he made Loghain promise and Loghain keeps his word here.

[Monica21]

Sarah1281 wrote...
And we get it: you're not supposed to leave your King to die. It's not legal to do so. Yes Loghain was 'supposed' to charge and get everyone else killed and doom Ferelden. He didn't and regardless of what the medieval mindset would make of his choices, we're trying to decide if it was necessary or at least whether it created a better outcome then sacrificing all of his men to save one person would have been.

I wouldn't take the medieval legality of what Loghain should or shouldn't do very far, to be honest. DA played with it when it was necessary and didn't when it wasn't. Example: Alistair. As a bastard son he wouldn't be acknowledged as an heir much less put forward as king without quite a large number of troops to help him fight for the throne.

[TJPags]

Monica21 wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Yeah, the VO notes straight up say:

Loghain: Yes, Cailan. A glorious moment for us all. (VO: Said a bit ominously, Loghain knows that the coming battle is going to mean Cailan's death when he betrays the King)

So unless someone wants to argue the value of VO as cannon. There you go.

Not only am I confused by the VO notes, but I'm confused by the devs stating that Loghain knew their forces couldn't win at Ostagar because the size of the horde was larger than they anticipated. I don't have the quote because it's in a much older thread, but it has been stated. And why would Loghain try to talk Cailan out of battling at the front lines if he'd planned on betraying him?

And I'm also confused by Gaider's apparent contradiction about exactly what the tax was supposed to do. Drive away freeholders or the "elites?" Or is canon just changing to suit whim or because they forgot about VO notes?

This is where I have problems with "Gaider said".

A lot of what he says seems to me to be vague.  I've seen at least one point where he stated flat out that the game never gives the player the info that he (Gaider) basis his opinion on (the poisoning Eamon issue quote).  Now we see the VO notes apparently contradicted what Gaider said about when the decision was made.

Clearly, in the case of this game, there's some confusion or disagreement in the development group about some things, or just plain sloppy game writing.  As a result, I'm not so sure that everything Gaider says can be taken as canon.

[Sarah1281]

phaonica wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Yeah, the VO notes straight up say:

Loghain: Yes, Cailan. A glorious moment for us all. (VO: Said a bit ominously, Loghain knows that the coming battle is going to mean Cailan's death when he betrays the King)

So unless someone wants to argue the value of VO as cannon. There you go.

Erm, are you the phaonica I know? Last time you were absolutley sure Loghain did the right thing and not betray anyone....

I know, right? LoL. But it's written right there pretty clearly. I might still argue that DG has said that Loghain didn't make the decision until right there at the beacon, but the VO clearly says he *knows* the coming battle will mean Cailan's death. So I could say that what DG says trumps what's in the VOs and that VOs aren't cannon because they're just supposed to be directive and not taken literally. It doesn't change my mind about sparing Loghain, mind you, and I still think he did the right thing. It just means that his plan to leave Cailan had more to do with the Orlesians and less to do with whether or not he could be saved on the field.

I think what happened was, knowing in advance that retreat might be necessary, Loghain wants his men at the Tower so that if it comes to it he can leave. He tries to talk Cailan out of fighting on the front lines but fails. He knows that he will retreat if necessary anyway. Since he has such a bad feeling about Ostagar anyway and feels so strongly about it he put a plan to retreat in place if he has to, he gets the feeling that Cailan won't survive the battle and a retreat will be necessary but Cailan never listens to him and so he doesn't see what else he could do.

Loghain-is-evil people: Don't say charge. I know he could, he knows he could, he won't though because he thinks it's suicide for the nation.

[Sarah1281]

Monica21 wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
And we get it: you're not supposed to leave your King to die. It's not legal to do so. Yes Loghain was 'supposed' to charge and get everyone else killed and doom Ferelden. He didn't and regardless of what the medieval mindset would make of his choices, we're trying to decide if it was necessary or at least whether it created a better outcome then sacrificing all of his men to save one person would have been.

I wouldn't take the medieval legality of what Loghain should or shouldn't do very far, to be honest. DA played with it when it was necessary and didn't when it wasn't. Example: Alistair. As a bastard son he wouldn't be acknowledged as an heir much less put forward as king without quite a large number of troops to help him fight for the throne.

Well, I wasn't talking strictly medieval mindset. What country have you ever heard of that has it be legal to kill or allow to be killed its leader? 

[Monica21]

Sarah1281 wrote...
We're all aware Loghain broke the law here. The question remains whether it was justified, necessary, ect. Cailan could, as you mentioned, do whatever he liked. If he re-outlawd GW (like Loghain did) should they all wait quietly at the border for Ferelden to be destroyed or should they break the law and fight? The fact that Loghain broke the law in not swooping in to resuce Cailan is actually the least questionable thing about the entire event and so I really hate it when people are like 'Oh, he broke the law. He's a bad man. Let's kill him.' You break all sorts of laws in game and no one ever seems to cry for their Warden to be put to death for such treasonous acts as being in Ferelden, murdering an Arl, murdering a Bann, breaking into a private noble estate, anything Slim has you do...

Dumping bodies down a well without any of your companions so much as blinking an eye. The entire game is shades of gray. Probably hence the name "Grey Wardens." There is no such thing as chaotic evil and lawful good, only what you can do that will benefit you.

[Monica21]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
And we get it: you're not supposed to leave your King to die. It's not legal to do so. Yes Loghain was 'supposed' to charge and get everyone else killed and doom Ferelden. He didn't and regardless of what the medieval mindset would make of his choices, we're trying to decide if it was necessary or at least whether it created a better outcome then sacrificing all of his men to save one person would have been.

I wouldn't take the medieval legality of what Loghain should or shouldn't do very far, to be honest. DA played with it when it was necessary and didn't when it wasn't. Example: Alistair. As a bastard son he wouldn't be acknowledged as an heir much less put forward as king without quite a large number of troops to help him fight for the throne.

Well, I wasn't talking strictly medieval mindset. What country have you ever heard of that has it be legal to kill or allow to be killed its leader? 

If the President of the United States is convicted of treason the penalty is death. Granted, that's an extreme example, but it's there. It's legal.

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

phaonica wrote...


I think that even if he thought he could save Cailan, he might have thought that it wasn't worth the loss of the soldiers. So that would equate to even if there was a chance, he chose not to take it. Which is exactly what Maric told him to do.

Well, saving the king would not only have saved the king but also the army that was with him. Maric would have agreed with Loghain deserting his king to save the soldiers, but definitely NOT with deserting an entire army.

Not if it were a matter of charging so a small squad could get Cailan out of there and retreating which Loghain's words on the matter make it sound like he's talking about.

Now wait.  Wait wait wait wait.

Caillan is his King.  Does a general not have an absolute obligation to attempt to save his King's life?  Does a noble not have an obligation to save his Liege's life?

I assume that, in Ferelden as in virtually EVERY midievel nation in our own world, oaths of fealty are given.  I assume that oaths are given by generals.  Some part of that oath MUST at least imply an obligation to defend the life of the liege.

From the posted quote earlier, that's what Maric told Loghain about himSELF- and I'd still say Loghain would have the obligation to do it.

This is not Maric - it's Caillan.  Caillan said nothing of the kind.

Maric told him not to put any one person at all above Ferelden. Loghain did that. Cailan may not have approved but Maric wasn't just talking about himself.

And we get it: you're not supposed to leave your King to die. It's not legal to do so. Yes Loghain was 'supposed' to charge and get everyone else killed and doom Ferelden. He didn't and regardless of what the medieval mindset would make of his choices, we're trying to decide if it was necessary or at least whether it created a better outcome then sacrificing all of his men to save one person would have been.

It would have been very noble indeed if Loghain had died and had all of his men die in a failed attempt to rescue his King but it would also be a stupid move. Loghain's never been an honor before reason type anyway.

Maric's dead.  Caillan is the King.  If Caillan wanted to take away Loghain's title (which he likely got from Maric) he could.  If Caillan wanted to exile Loghain to the furthest reaches of Ferelden, he could.  If Caillan wanted to have Loghain dress in women's dresses, he could.

The point?  New king, new rules.  I doubt very much that doing something so unexpected, and excusing it with "well, the last king told me to" will go very far.  Try missing a deadline at a new job, and telling your new boss "well, my last boss didn't care if my work was late".  I don't think that'll fly very far.

However, you did at least admit Loghain broke the law.  So, thanks.  Break the law = treason = death.

You know what else breaks the law? The CE 1) Possessing a weapon 2) Breaking into the Arl's estate 3) Killing humans 4) Killing a bann. We should really put that treasonous **** down, huh?

We're all aware Loghain broke the law here. The question remains whether it was justified, necessary, ect. Cailan could, as you mentioned, do whatever he liked. If he re-outlawd GW (like Loghain did) should they all wait quietly at the border for Ferelden to be destroyed or should they break the law and fight? The fact that Loghain broke the law in not swooping in to resuce Cailan is actually the least questionable thing about the entire event and so I really hate it when people are like 'Oh, he broke the law. He's a bad man. Let's kill him.' You break all sorts of laws in game and no one ever seems to cry for their Warden to be put to death for such treasonous acts as being in Ferelden, murdering an Arl, murdering a Bann, breaking into a private noble estate, anything Slim has you do...

Maric told Loghain to promise him to never put one person before the entire nation. The fact that you say 'new King, new rules' means that you're tacitly agreeing that saving Cailan would be risking the entire nation, just so you know. Maric didn't make a law or public policy saying 'never put one person before the country' and so it's not like Cailan can change it. Cailan can't say 'yeah, just so you know I'm the King now so any unofficial promises between friends that you made are now null and void.' It's just something he made Loghain promise and Loghain keeps his word here.

Please don't tell me what I "tacitly agree" with.  Your impression of what I think is NOT canon.  I think it's clear that I do NOT think that Loghain doing his job would have imperilled Ferelden.  In fact, I think it's clear that my opinion is that Loghain NOT doing his job is what put the nation into peril.

What Maric told Loghain was, essentially, "next time, don't worry about your oath to defend me".  That's fine, as far as it goes with Maric.  When Loghain gives that same oath to Caillan (and yes, I'm assuming here, but I think it's a reasonable assumption), his promise to Maric HAS to be forfeit.  If it's not, then he gave a false oath.

A promise to friend does NOT take pecendence, or SHOULD not, to one's obligation to the crown and to the King.  And if it does, then Loghain has no business giving any type of oath to Caillan.

As for the other acts you mentioned - a CE carrying a weapon is NOT treason.  Breaking into a nobles estate is NOT treason.  Killing an Arl is NOT treason. 

Conspiring to murder a king, THAT'S treason.

Justification for treason?  Only if your successful, in which case, as I said before, it's because you pardon yourself.  It's still treason, you just escape punishment.

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

From the posted quote earlier, that's what Maric told Loghain about himSELF- and I'd still say Loghain would have the obligation to do it.

This is not Maric - it's Caillan.  Caillan said nothing of the kind.

I couldn't quote pages and pages of context for that line. Loghain was arguing that Maric is the king, that they should be doing everything in their power to save him. Maric says that his being king means absolutely nothing if they lose the army because without Maric, they could still win, but without he armies, Ferelden is lost.

Fair enough, as I don't expect you to post pages of the book for me, but . . . .what about the rest of what I said, about the obligation to do so?

Don't you think there's something in that?

No. I think that Loghain's primary obligation was to his country, not the king. The medieval mindset might say differently, but I don't think the context of the game is utterly faithful to what we know about the medieval mindset, either. The country and the king are not the same thing.

I view these games through a medieval mindset, can't help it.  So that's what I base these opinions of mine on.