1092 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

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, in essence, that's what they DID do with Alistair - he's put forward by Eamon, who is hoping to use his influence and others disapproval of Loghain rather than swords, but it's essentially the same.

[Sarah1281]

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.

You said that Loghain's promise to not put any one man - even the King - before the entire country shouldn't apply to Cailan as 'new King, new rules.' If Loghain saving Cailan wouldn't have been putting one man before the country than Maric's promise doesn't even come up at all.



I wasn't saying that YOU agreed, just that your words did. And how else would you interpret:

'X promised Y he wouldn't do a. Y is dead and Z is on the throne. X shouldn't keep his promise to Y about a because Z wouldn't agree'? If the situation was 'X promised Y he wouldn't do a. Y is dead and Z is on the throne. X shouldn't not do b because Z wouldn't agree' then that whole part with a has nothing to do with it at all.

[TJPags]

Sarah:

This:

"Maric: Loghain, if you hadn't come after me, you might have made a difference in that battle. At the very least, you might have gotten more of them out alive.

...

Loghain glanced up at Maric, eyes intense in the firelight. "Next time, I won't come to your rescue. You're on your own." Something significant passed between the two of them. Rowan could see it, but she couldn't understand it. Still, Maric seemed pleased by it.

(from the Stolen Throne)"

Is the quote I was referring to.  Now, first, that snippet actually has LOGHAIN coming up with that, not Maric, but I'll go on the assumption that Loghain was actually repeating/agreeing with something Maric said, pehaps even "don't let one man be more important than the country".

This:  "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."

prompted me to respond that:

"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."

You responded with:

"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. "

I continued with:

"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."

This was your response:

"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. "

I think I've been very consistent that, assuming Loghain made a promise to Maric that he would not save the king if it meant losing the army, once he swears an oath to defend and protect Caillan, he has compromised his promise to Maric, or has lied to Caillan.  He cannot honor both promises, as shown by Ostagar - he can't protect and defend the king, while at the same time choosing not to do so if he thinks he will lose an army.  (At least, if we assume that he WOULD have lost the army, and that the battle was unwinnable, which the VO notes seem to state was not true).

This is not X promising Y not to do A, then doing B, or Y promising Z not to do F but doing it anyway.

Loghain made two mutually contradictory oaths.  He promised Maric that he would not lose an army to save a king.  He swore to Caillan that he would protect and defend him - he says nothing about "unless it will cost an army to do so".  His promise to Maric, contradicted as it was by his oath to Caillan, should not have taken precedence.
That is, has been, and remains my opinion on that.

It also is, has been, and remains my opinion that, (and supported by the VO notes):
1.  Loghain planned to betray Caillan, not as a contingency, but as his actual, and only, plan, so that Caillan would not live past Ostagar.
2.  Loghain COULD have saved Caillan, the battle WAS winnable, Loghain simply THOUGHT he couldn't do either, but he was wrong.
As he planned to kill the king, or at least planned to allow him to die, he is guilty of consipracy to commit regicide.  As he failed to take any steps to protect and defend the king, or win the battle, he violated his oath AND committed treason.
For both, he deserves death.

[phaonica]

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

I realize that the whole "the country and the king are not the same thing" mentality is unusual in a medieval context. But Ferelden's government itself is unusual in a medieval context, too, and apparently is unusual in the context of most of the governments of Thedas.

TJPags wrote...

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.

I was wrong to say that Loghain did it because that's what Maric told him to do. That isn't what I believe.

It wasn't about Maric, it was about Ferelden. Maric would have just as surely told Loghain, "Don't lose the battle trying to save Rowan. Don't lose Ferelden trying to save *any* one person." Maric wasn't saying that just his life was okay to be lost in order to protect Ferelden, but that *no* one life was more important than protecting Ferelden. It wasn't just a promise to Maric, it is a part of what Maric believes in and part of what Loghain believes in. Loghain doesn't just follow that mentality because Maric told him to, but because he believes in it.

And I'm not going to conjecture on whatever oath Loghain may or may not have given Cailan. It might be safe to assume that some kind of oath was made, but we have no idea what the terms were.

[Dean_the_Young]

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.

Highly unlikely in the extreme: just getting to Cailan would have ripped the heart out of Loghain's forces, and in that time Cailan's forces would have been devestated as well. Armies in such danger of being demolished do not come out intact after a last-minute rescue.

[TJPags]

Well, but Phaonica, could Loghain have gotten away with that attitude, even with Maric, if he didn't have Maric's approval? After all, let's suppose this" Maric in danger, Loghain doesn't come help him, Maric gets out anyway, asks what happened, and Loghain responds with "I thought it was too dangerous". If Maric didn't agree, how do you think Maric - or ANY king - would have reacted?



All I'm saying is that Loghain needs to adapt to the expectations of the new king - he can't justufy failing the new king because of something that the old king was okay with, if the new king did not agree with it - and we have no idea, and no indication, that Caillan would have been okay with that.

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

Well, but Phaonica, could Loghain have gotten away with that attitude, even with Maric, if he didn't have Maric's approval? After all, let's suppose this" Maric in danger, Loghain doesn't come help him, Maric gets out anyway, asks what happened, and Loghain responds with "I thought it was too dangerous". If Maric didn't agree, how do you think Maric - or ANY king - would have reacted?

I can't think of any instance in the books where Maric ever *expects* Loghain to come to his rescue, not for their status as friends and certainly not due to his status as king. Futhermore, I can think of an instance in the Calling where Maric amusedly implies that if anyone expects to be able to manipulate Loghain using Maric's life they will find themselves sorely mistaken. Maric generally wants and counts on Loghain to put Ferelden's well being first.

If Maric didn't let Loghain get away with that attitude, he would have been being a hypocrite, because he pretty much gave Loghain that attitude in the first place.

All I'm saying is that Loghain needs to adapt to the expectations of the new king - he can't justufy failing the new king because of something that the old king was okay with, if the new king did not agree with it - and we have no idea, and no indication, that Caillan would have been okay with that.

So because Cailan is king, he gets to decide that he is more important than Ferelden and Loghain has to just accept that? The war wasn't about putting Maric on the throne, the war was about liberating Ferelden. Loghain's loyalty is to Ferelden first, not the king, and that doesn't change when a new king takes the throne.

Modifié par phaonica, 17 août 2010 - 03:50 .

[Elhanan]

phaonica wrote...

More reliable in positioning armies, accessing a battlefield and executing a strategy based on the dynamic environment on the field?

Just because You Can Trust Alistair, and even if he did have a good vantage point, it doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.

And while not the best witnesses, our view as Wardens seem to be supported by both Flemeth and Morrigan.

And you can hardly take their assessment at face value either, what with their ulterior motives.

As opposed to that of the Teryn?

And what of the highly trained Ser Cauthrian that initially disapproves of the plan to retreat? Must be some reason she thought attack was still a viable.course of action.

Who has the better view of the battle? Loghain on the flank at a distance able to withdraw, or the Wardens in the Tower above the entire field of battle. (BTW, I still love to stop and look over the bridge at the ongoing battle. Many kudos to Bioware for this!).

And for some general speculation (pun intended), Alistair is reared as a Noble, and trained as a Templar. I would say that it is likely that military tactics and strategy made into all that knowledge of history of which he is so proud. And he was impressive enough to gain Duncan's attention despite failings at personal combat. And then there is the more recent time spent with the other Wardens.

And while the VO is not canon, it certainly is evidence useful against Loghain.

Loghain deserved death for his many crimes; many times over.

[Sarah1281]

And for some general speculation (pun intended), Alistair is reared as a Noble, and trained as a Templar. I would say that it is likely that military tactics and strategy made into all that knowledge of history of which he is so proud. And he was impressive enough to gain Duncan's attention despite failings at personal combat. And then there is the more recent time spent with the other Wardens.

That is some weak logic there. He's not reared as a noble either. He makes it clear that he's not, he just lived at Redcliffe castle until he was ten and then he was sent to the Templars. Exactly why would a common Templar be expected to be a master tacticion?



And this particular tangent isn't about Loghain's word over Alistair's or whether Loghain deserves to die. It's about, regardless of the actual state of Ostagar, Alistair can't say with any credibility that Cailan almost had them beat. He can't see the whole field, he doesn't have time to stand at the Tower and stare at the battle, and not once was it mentioned that he was even passingly familiar with tactics.

[Elhanan]

True, tis only speculation that Alistair was trained in tactics. But he was reared by the Arl who knew the truth of the bloodline, and Ser Jory mentions in passing that Nobles do get such training. Then the Templars get a hold of him, and they are a group of Warriors trained in warfare; directly against mages, as well as that of demons and abominations. Plus we know history is in the instruction; something Alaistair is proud of knowing well.

I would venture that it is more likely than not that Alistair has such knowledge.

As for witness testimony, Wynne also verfies the conclusions of the Wardens, Flemeth, and Morrigan, as well as the second hand testimony from the lad on the rack at Howe's estate. More than just Alistair' word; tis the word of multiple witnesses, including the possibility of a Human or Dwarven Noble Warden; one certainly trained in warfare.

[Sarah1281]

Elhanan wrote...

True, tis only speculation that Alistair was trained in tactics. But he was reared by the Arl who knew the truth of the bloodline, and Ser Jory mentions in passing that Nobles do get such training. Then the Templars get a hold of him, and they are a group of Warriors trained in warfare; directly against mages, as well as that of demons and abominations. Plus we know history is in the instruction; something Alaistair is proud of knowing well.
I would venture that it is more likely than not that Alistair has such knowledge.
As for witness testimony, Wynne also verfies the conclusions of the Wardens, Flemeth, and Morrigan, as well as the second hand testimony from the lad on the rack at Howe's estate. More than just Alistair' word; tis the word of multiple witnesses, including the possibility of a Human or Dwarven Noble Warden; one certainly trained in warfare.

No one else says Cailan 'almost won.' They all said 'Loghain quit the field' which we kind of knew already.

[Elhanan]

They really do not have to, as the original plans were known to mages and Chantry alike, and any others hanging about the area (eg; Elvish servants, eavesdropping dogs or shifters, etc). While too few in number to recant the rumor of the Warden's treason, they are still witnesses to both the plans, and the retreat.

Loghain may not have used the blade himself, but he indirectly killed Cailan, Duncan, and every warm body left to die at Ostagar. Death is warranted.

[Sarah1281]

Elhanan wrote...

They really do not have to, as the original plans were known to mages and Chantry alike, and any others hanging about the area (eg; Elvish servants, eavesdropping dogs or shifters, etc). While too few in number to recant the rumor of the Warden's treason, they are still witnesses to both the plans, and the retreat.
Loghain may not have used the blade himself, but he indirectly killed Cailan, Duncan, and every warm body left to die at Ostagar. Death is warranted.

We weren't talking about whether Loghain deserved to die but about whether or not Alistair can really claim with any authority that Cailan almost won (which he can't). This is a very important point because if he did then it doesn't matter if Loghain had been Mother Teresa the rest of his life because abandoning Cailan when not only could they have won but they nearly did even without Loghain's reinforcements (which, given it's a massacre, is absurd) would damn him.

[Elhanan]

We have Wynne's testimony of Loghains "treachory" that she gave to the Circle, to counter Uldred's earlier reports and manipulations. This would seem to confirm what we as Warden's already understand to be the case. If withdrawl was only done to save the remaining men, then it makes little sense for Wynne to have given such a report, let alone be so upset with Loghain during the RtO moments.

Alistair appears to have support from the other survivors; some in Loghain's own command.

[phaonica]

Sarah1281 wrote...

We weren't talking about whether Loghain deserved to die but about whether or not Alistair can really claim with any authority that Cailan almost won (which he can't).

This is a very important point because if he did then it doesn't matter if Loghain had been Mother Teresa the rest of his life because abandoning Cailan when not only could they have won but they nearly did even without Loghain's reinforcements (which, given it's a massacre, is absurd) would damn him.

For me, even if the battle could have been won or had nearly been won when Loghain retreated, it wouldn't necessarily damn him in my mind. It would also depend on whether or not he had reason to believe that this was the decisive and final battle against the darkspawn (because if they had fought previous battles, how could they be sure that this was the last battle against them they'd have to fight?).

[Elhanan]

phaonica wrote...

For me, even if the battle could have been won or had nearly been won when Loghain retreated, it wouldn't necessarily damn him in my mind. It would also depend on whether or not he had reason to believe that this was the decisive and final battle against the darkspawn (because if they had fought previous battles, how could they be sure that this was the last battle against them they'd have to fight?).

From Duncan's instructions to you; the newest member of the team. I believe he mentioned that if the Darkspawn march northward, Ferelden will fall. I am certain that Duncan knew the Blight could not end w/o the appearance of the Archdemon, but that this was still a key battle. And while Duncan proved to be incorrect, this was the prevailing belief at the time; the best chance for victory.

Loghain's actions insured defeat.

[Sarah1281]

No, Loghain's actions did not automatically ensure defeat. If defeat was inevitable, it didn't matter what Loghain did because they still wouldn't have own. It only ensured defeat if the battle could have been won which is unclear.

[Elhanan]

Having a sizable portion of your troops removed and placed to flank the enemy, then not having them available certainly does not help. By changing the battle plan, Loghain then takes responsibity for the resultant defeat. Instead, he tries to place blame on the Wardens.

Why lie to cover up a reasonable decision? I state that it was not an inevitable defeat until he chose to leave the dance early.

[phaonica]

If Loghain thought that the battle could be won, and that it was the final battle, that the darkspawn would be defeated or crawl back into their holes or whatever, that there would be no more reason for the Orlesians to advance, that Cailan would be able to just say "crisis averted" and send the Orlesians home, and Loghain retreated anyway, then I *might* reconsider sparing him. It seems like if he wanted Cailan dead that badly, there were way easier ways to go about it.

[Persephone]

phaonica wrote...

If Loghain thought that the battle could be won, and that it was the final battle, that the darkspawn would be defeated or crawl back into their holes or whatever, that there would be no more reason for the Orlesians to advance, that Cailan would be able to just say "crisis averted" and send the Orlesians home, and Loghain retreated anyway, then I *might* reconsider sparing him. It seems like if he wanted Cailan dead that badly, there were way easier ways to go about it.

This. And Cailan himself obviously doubted that there'd be a victory at Ostagar. (RTO)

[Elhanan]

Like poison? Hire an assassin? Having someone killed takes many forms, and he used these. too. Loghain allowed his hatred of the Orlesians to direct his actions, and to take advice from those of possibly more evil hrats than his own. Still his choices; still his crimes.

Dress this one up as y'all wish; still labled murder.

[Elhanan]

Persephone wrote...

This. And Cailan himself obviously doubted that there'd be a victory at Ostagar. (RTO)

So did my Wardens. Still we remained and did our duties; not quitting and allowing others to die so that we could escape. While I see why Loghain was hailed as a hero at one time, he sacrificed this reputation thru his own actions. Not repentant; simply took events into his own hands because he thought his ideas were better and more correct than others, even those of a higher authority.

Loghain not only failed Cailan, but himself and his own prior beliefs.

[Persephone]

Elhanan wrote...

Persephone wrote...

This. And Cailan himself obviously doubted that there'd be a victory at Ostagar. (RTO)

So did my Wardens. Still we remained and did our duties; not quitting and allowing others to die so that we could escape. While I see why Loghain was hailed as a hero at one time, he sacrificed this reputation thru his own actions. Not repentant; simply took events into his own hands because he thought his ideas were better and more correct than others, even those of a higher authority.

Loghain not only failed Cailan, but himself and his own prior beliefs.

Difference. The Wardens were a small group. Loghain had thousands of lives under his command. I see it as picking the lesser evil, no pun intended. He saved a huge chunk of the army by not following a signal lit up much too late. Could he have saved the day? Maybe. But remembering West Hill... among other things... his decision was clear.

[Persephone]

Elhanan wrote...

Like poison? Hire an assassin? Having someone killed takes many forms, and he used these. too. Loghain allowed his hatred of the Orlesians to direct his actions, and to take advice from those of possibly more evil hrats than his own. Still his choices; still his crimes.
Dress this one up as y'all wish; still labled murder.

As Loghain himself asks: And Cailan's reckless foolishness played no part in it at all? Yes, Cailan fell in battle. That does not absolve him from accusing his uncle of only wanting to steal his effin' glory. From letting his glory hunting cloud his judgment. From allying with the very nation his father and Teyrn Loghain as well as his people and country suffered under for a century. It also does not absolve King Cailan from being an utter fool. A charming fool, yes. But charming fools are poor rulers.