1092 réponses à ce sujet

[Giggles_Manically]

Tirigon wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

While some may be like Jory a normal person who is willing to fight, others will be Daveths or Anders who are criminals and outlaws.

Funny you mention them. A pickpocket (Daveth) and a person whose only crime is not to follow a law that is just as cruel as the fascist´s anti-jewish laws in real life and a crime in itself (Anders), that is rather a freedom-fighter than a criminal.

I don´t know about your morality but I wouldn´t compare their "crimes" with the mass torture and murder, rape, treason etc... which are Howe´s and Vaughan´s crimes.

It was not in comparison to their crimes, more that the wardens take ANYONE, and you are told this often by many people. Wardens are kinslayers, malificars, apostates, murderers, outlaws and worse,

Also read the early history of the French Foreign Legion, many people who were famed warriors were like Howe and Vaughan (not so powerful but almost as nasty). Simply because you commit a crime should not remove the ability to atone for it.

Also the warden in some cases are criminals:
DN, can possibly commit fratricide, and kill off the heir apparent
CE, kills over a dozen guardsmen, and noblemen in an attack.
DC: Is a former carta thug, who broke most dwarven laws at one time or another.
Mage: Losed an blood mage, possibly.

Dont be so quick to spit on others, when multiple origins are not very squeaky clean people.

[TJPags]

Wow, so basically now we're excusing Loghain because Caillan is a fool, and we can't have a fool during a Blight?

Did he just become a fool?  Was he the best king ever for 5 years, and only turn into a fool now?

And what happened to "there was no Blight, since only the wardens said there was, and Loghain knows you can';t trust wardens?"

So Caillan's sudden and inexplicable foolishness during a Blight Loghain didn't believe in justifes poisoning Eamon (and I don't even care at this point if he was supposed to die or not), drawing up a plan virtually guaranteed to kill the foolish king AND a large number of soldiers if not carried out properly?

Does it also excuse lying about what happened at Ostagar (there is NEVER any evidence that the Wardens betrayed the king, unless you count the late lighting of the beacon in a Tower that was SUPPOSED to have been secured by Loghain's men), naming himself regent for a Queen without ruling power, turning a blind eye to Howe's atrocities, and permitting slavery?

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...

Funny you mention them. A pickpocket (Daveth) and a person whose only crime is not to follow a law that is just as cruel as the fascist´s anti-jewish laws in real life and a crime in itself (Anders), that is rather a freedom-fighter than a criminal.

I'm not sure what you know about about ****s and Jews, the Night of Broken Glass, or anything else in Europe pre-1945, but I find the comparison of a government keeping those with magic in a tower, in relative comfort, letting them learn their craft, and letting them travel throughout Ferelden to a government the murdered 6 million Jews not only disappointing but also insulting.

I don´t know about your morality but I wouldn´t compare their "crimes" with the mass torture and murder, rape, treason etc... which are Howe´s and Vaughan´s crimes.

I would, because it's still crime. What did you do with Sten? If you released him and added him to your party, whether you could make him a Warden or not, he was part of your success.

They´re monsters worse than the Darkspawn. "Man´s hearts hold shadows darker than any tainted creature". Probably the wisest sentence a video game character has ever said.

They are most definitely not worse than darkspawn. They're not even worse than Branka. One of them is a murderer and the other a rapist, but they can be controlled. They can be held accountable. Darkspawn destroy everything they touch, not because they choose to but because they can. If you decide that your life is less important than a Hurlock's because it's poor enslaved Hurlock then that's certainly your business, but I will still hold it within my right to think it's irrational.

Because Darkspawn are poor, enslaved creatures forced to commit all these atrocities against their own will - the Architect and his awakened Darkspawn have shown that much - while Vaughan and Howe were born as free humans (and humans in a very good position, what with being noble and all) and decided to become monsters just for the sake of their own joy and power.

I think that you didn't understand Awakenings. Darkspawn are a plague. They spread across the land and destroy everything they can because it's the only way they can live above ground. They are not forced to commit atrocities against their will, they do it because the vast majority of them are mindless creatures who act on instinct. You can't talk to a darkspawn or even reason with it. They do what they do because it's their nature.

When I first started participating in this thread I thought, oh, whatever, not everyone will agree but it will make for interesting discussion. Now I simply think that you didn't understand the game, you don't understand the darkspawn, you don't understand the Wardens, and I'm not even sure about your own sense of self-preservation.

Modifié par Monica21, 18 août 2010 - 12:07 .

[Giggles_Manically]

No one says that Loghain is "excused" for what he did, as you put it.



There is an alot of difference between what is explainable, and what is able to be excused.

People are saying that things explain why Loghain does things, not that they excuse him.



No matter how you turn it Loghain did evil things, and nothing can exonerate him. People are simply saying that Loghain dosent deserve execution at the Landsmeet, and should be made to try and repair some of the damage.



Also Cailian was a figurehead, and in game you learn that Anora was the real ruler, who made the descions, Calian was off playing General most likely and impressing crowds.

[TJPags]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

No one says that Loghain is "excused" for what he did, as you put it.

There is an alot of difference between what is explainable, and what is able to be excused.
People are saying that things explain why Loghain does things, not that they excuse him.

No matter how you turn it Loghain did evil things, and nothing can exonerate him. People are simply saying that Loghain dosent deserve execution at the Landsmeet, and should be made to try and repair some of the damage.

Also Cailian was a figurehead, and in game you learn that Anora was the real ruler, who made the descions, Calian was off playing General most likely and impressing crowds.

Oh, I know Anora was running the country . . which just begs the question, if Caillan is being allowed to die because he was a fool, why put him on the throne in the first place, or allow him to stay there for 5 years?  Since his behavior never changes, he clearly never deserved to be on the throne.

And everything is explainable.  Whether it's a GOOD explanation or not is what matters when determining punishment.

Perhaps the problem here is more basic . . . I, for one, believe in punishing , rather than redemption, especially when you have a list of atrocities as long as Loghains.

I mean, come on - -  "I killed 63 children, but it was for the good of mankind - I saved us from aliens!!!'

Is that a good excuse, suggesting the person should be given a chance to atone and repair damage . . by maybe running a day care agency?

[Monica21]

TJPags wrote...
I mean, come on - -  "I killed 63 children, but it was for the good of mankind - I saved us from aliens!!!'

Is that a good excuse, suggesting the person should be given a chance to atone and repair damage . . by maybe running a day care agency?

Well, that depends. Were the children collateral damage and were aliens actually attacking?

Also, poor analogy.

[Giggles_Manically]

No one is saying that by being a Warden Loghain will be redeemed.





<SPOILERS>

Personally the ending where he destorys his soul in one last act of courage for Ferelden is a good ending. If you havent seen the ending then you should, hearing Simon T. say "please I have done so much wrong.. allow me to do one last thing right" is profound.



People who hate Loghain dont see this but in the final Loghain sees his own mistakes and comes out of his paranoia and hate for that last moment and wants with all his being to be the one who saves his home from his error. If you cant stomach sparing him youtube it, one of the single most profound moments in the game.

[Monica21]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

No one is saying that by being a Warden Loghain will be redeemed.



Personally the ending where he destorys his soul in one last act of courage for Ferelden is a good ending. If you havent seen the ending then you should, hearing Simon T. say "please I have done so much wrong.. allow me to do one last thing right" is profound.

People who hate Loghain dont see this but in the final Loghain sees his own mistakes and comes out of his paranoia and hate for that last moment and wants with all his being to be the one who saves his home from his error. If you cant stomach sparing him youtube it, one of the single most profound moments in the game.

All this discussion has made me decide that my next character will spare Loghain, for the first time EVAR! Alistair can share the throne with Anora.

How does Morrigan react if you don't do the DR? She's one of my favorite companions and I don't want to ****** her off.

[Giggles_Manically]

Monica21 wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

No one is saying that by being a Warden Loghain will be redeemed.



Personally the ending where he destorys his soul in one last act of courage for Ferelden is a good ending. If you havent seen the ending then you should, hearing Simon T. say "please I have done so much wrong.. allow me to do one last thing right" is profound.

People who hate Loghain dont see this but in the final Loghain sees his own mistakes and comes out of his paranoia and hate for that last moment and wants with all his being to be the one who saves his home from his error. If you cant stomach sparing him youtube it, one of the single most profound moments in the game.

All this discussion has made me decide that my next character will spare Loghain, for the first time EVAR! Alistair can share the throne with Anora.

How does Morrigan react if you don't do the DR? She's one of my favorite companions and I don't want to ****** her off.

She takes it poorly to say the least.
Also Alistair is Senior Rageface after the final if Loghain is still kicking.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Persephone wrote...


Wouldn't have been a glorious victory at that point. Just how I see it.

Then you need to play Rome Total War. The darkspawn horde were only about 3 times more than the defenders, but I know from TW-experience that you can easily defeat a 5 times stronger force with a flank attack.

I can't decide whether this is a dazzling piece of deliberate fasmile or a sincere but incredibly dumb false analogy.

Being the optimist I am, I choose the one that makes humanity look better. Good act, sir!

Tirigon wrote...
Not after a last-minute-rescue, but after a glorious victory and the utter defeat of the darkspawn horde? They would.

And if Loghain were Anora's mom he'd have ******.

[Dean_the_Young]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Secondly, The Wardens are supposed to be glorious and heroic. They can´t fulfill this duty if they have a traitor as one of them.

Glorious and heroic? These are the same Wardens who have made deals with darkspawn, attempted a coup, mess around in politics habitually, and burned down an entire town in order to prevent possible darkspawn corruption from spreading?

Don't forget fratricide, political assassination, caste usurption, and aiding a melefecarum's escape (depending on your origin).

[Giggles_Manically]

People who think that the wardens are "glorious" and heroic are missing something...

called a brain.



The Wardens are the equivilant of modern day Tier 1 Special forces.

Spec ops people are not selfless heroes, they are violent, well trained, and lethal people who do whatever they have to, to whoever they have to, wherever and whenever they have to.



Replace Terrorists with Darkspawn, and Wardens are a fantasy mirror image of people in Spetznas or the Mossad. The wardens do ANYTHING to stop a blight, they have done and will do things that make Howe and Vaughan look like people with overdue library books.

[phaonica]

I know this is altering the subject a little, but it is Loghain-related so I'll ask about it here.

The beacon. It was supposed to signal Loghain to engage the battle from the flank.

Cailan: The Grey Wardens and I draw the darkspawn into charging our lines and then...?
Loghain: You will alert the tower to light the beacon, signaling my men to charge from cover.
Cailan: To flank the darkspawn, I remember.

So, once Cailan engaged the darkspawn from the front, he was to send whoever to light the beacon to let Loghain know that the battle had been engaged. Would anyone have been able to see the battle from the beacon? Could Loghain see the battle at all from his position of cover?

If Loghain couldn't see the battle at all, how might he determine that the beacon was late? And if he could see that the battle was engaged from where he was, why wait for the beacon at all?

Conversely, if you could see the battle from the beacon, and the person at the beacon was supposed to see the perfect time for Loghain to flank and then signal him, it seems like you would want a "strategist" up there making that decision...

Modifié par phaonica, 18 août 2010 - 01:32 .

[Sarah1281]

If Loghain couldn't see the battle at all, how might he determine that the beacon was late? And if he could see that the battle was engaged from where he was, why wait for the beacon at all?

Duncan tells you you have about an hour to light the beacon and Alistair says you're late once you get to the top of the Tower. My guess is that it's planned out that roughly an hour or so after you set off the signal is to be given out. If, say, two hours pass before the beacon is lit then Loghain would know that it's late even if he'd still need the beacon to tell him exactly when to come in.



What doesn't make sense to me is the idea that Loghain wanted his men or Uldred to light the beacon in case the battle couldn't be won (in his mind) and they neglected to do this. How would the men know whether or not to ignore the signal? Would the signal just not be sent in certain circumstances? That makes more sense once the Wardens are to light the beacon. Was the signal sent in the game? Alistair doesn't see it and you'd think that if the beacon failed to light they'd keep sending it. Maybe it's never sent as Loghain is planning on leaving under the circumstances but Alistair just assumes they missed it and lights it.

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

I know this is altering the subject a little, but it is Loghain-related so I'll ask about it here.

The beacon. It was supposed to signal Loghain to engage the battle from the flank.

Cailan: The Grey Wardens and I draw the darkspawn into charging our lines and then...?
Loghain: You will alert the tower to light the beacon, signaling my men to charge from cover.
Cailan: To flank the darkspawn, I remember.

So, once Cailan engaged the darkspawn from the front, he was to send whoever to light the beacon to let Loghain know that the battle had been engaged. Would anyone have been able to see the battle from the beacon? Could Loghain see the battle at all from his position of cover?

If Loghain couldn't see the battle at all, how might he determine that the beacon was late? And if he could see that the battle was engaged from where he was, why wait for the beacon at all?

Conversely, if you could see the battle from the beacon, and the person at the beacon was supposed to see the perfect time for Loghain to flank and then signal him, it seems like you would want a "strategist" up there making that decision...

Likely, it was pretty basic . . .once Caillan felt the Darkspawn had fully committed to the attack, he would signal the Tower, or order a signal sent . . . probably not some guy running there, but some kind of torch or flag or something that could be seen from the Tower.

Could Loghain see the battle from where he was?  Don't know.  The game almost implies he could, from the cutscene where he leaves.  I hadn't given it much thought, but if he was to have surprised the horde, he should have been hidden from them . . .and perhaps not have a view of the battle, or not a good one.

I have the sense, strictly my opinion, that those in the Tower could see what was happening, to some degree - likely a greater degree than Loghain.  Good enough to make their own determination?  Maybe.  Of course, no idea who was actually supposed to be there - a tactician who could decide, or just someone who knew what the signal was.

Very good questions . . . .

[Monica21]

TJPags wrote...
Likely, it was pretty basic . . .once Caillan felt the Darkspawn had fully committed to the attack, he would signal the Tower, or order a signal sent . . . probably not some guy running there, but some kind of torch or flag or something that could be seen from the Tower.

Could Loghain see the battle from where he was?  Don't know.  The game almost implies he could, from the cutscene where he leaves.  I hadn't given it much thought, but if he was to have surprised the horde, he should have been hidden from them . . .and perhaps not have a view of the battle, or not a good one.

I have the sense, strictly my opinion, that those in the Tower could see what was happening, to some degree - likely a greater degree than Loghain.  Good enough to make their own determination?  Maybe.  Of course, no idea who was actually supposed to be there - a tactician who could decide, or just someone who knew what the signal was.

Very good questions . . . .

I'm almost positive the Gaider or one of the devs said that Loghain could see the battle from his vantage point, hence them saying he knew the battle was lost. Just because he can see the darkspawn however, doesn't mean they can see him.

And we know that Loghain wanted Uldred there, who very likely would have only known what the signal was.

[TJPags]

Monica21 wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Likely, it was pretty basic . . .once Caillan felt the Darkspawn had fully committed to the attack, he would signal the Tower, or order a signal sent . . . probably not some guy running there, but some kind of torch or flag or something that could be seen from the Tower.

Could Loghain see the battle from where he was?  Don't know.  The game almost implies he could, from the cutscene where he leaves.  I hadn't given it much thought, but if he was to have surprised the horde, he should have been hidden from them . . .and perhaps not have a view of the battle, or not a good one.

I have the sense, strictly my opinion, that those in the Tower could see what was happening, to some degree - likely a greater degree than Loghain.  Good enough to make their own determination?  Maybe.  Of course, no idea who was actually supposed to be there - a tactician who could decide, or just someone who knew what the signal was.

Very good questions . . . .

I'm almost positive the Gaider or one of the devs said that Loghain could see the battle from his vantage point, hence them saying he knew the battle was lost. Just because he can see the darkspawn however, doesn't mean they can see him.

And we know that Loghain wanted Uldred there, who very likely would have only known what the signal was.

Why he thinks/wants the battle to be lost, you mean. 

But true . . .although how well he could see it, while being in a position to charge from a flank, while not being seen by the Darkspawn . . .  .logistically, I question that . . .

[Sarah1281]

I think Loghain could see PART of the battle but not the whole thing so thus they needed a beacon.

[phaonica]

Sarah1281 wrote...

If Loghain couldn't see the battle at all, how might he determine that the beacon was late? And if he could see that the battle was engaged from where he was, why wait for the beacon at all?

Duncan tells you you have about an hour to light the beacon and Alistair says you're late once you get to the top of the Tower. My guess is that it's planned out that roughly an hour or so after you set off the signal is to be given out. If, say, two hours pass before the beacon is lit then Loghain would know that it's late even if he'd still need the beacon to tell him exactly when to come in.

Okay, so there was the Joining, and then the War Meeting, and immediately after, you are told that you have about an hour to get to the beacon. I'm assuming that if Loghain left right after the war meeting, he would leave to get into position, so he has less than an hour to get his army into cover and wait for the beacon.

So say Loghain, from his position of cover, cannot see the field, but he knows that the beacon is supposed to be lit within roughly an hour. If the beacon is *never* lit, is he just supposed to wait forever? Or is he supposed to decide when too long is too long and engage anyway, not knowing why the beacon wasn't lit? 

What doesn't make sense to me is the idea that Loghain wanted his men or Uldred to light the beacon in case the battle couldn't be won (in his mind) and they neglected to do this.

Yeah, if the person at the beacon was supposed to determine for Loghain if the battle couldn't be won or not, you'd think you'd want a clear view of the field up there, and a trained tactician making that judgment.

How would the men know whether or not to ignore the signal? Would the signal just not be sent in certain circumstances? That makes more sense once the Wardens are to light the beacon. Was the signal sent in the game? Alistair doesn't see it and you'd think that if the beacon failed to light they'd keep sending it. Maybe it's never sent as Loghain is planning on leaving under the circumstances but Alistair just assumes they missed it and lights it.

Is someone at the battlefield supposed to send a separate signal to whomever is already up at the beacon to light it? 

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I think Loghain could see PART of the battle but not the whole thing so thus they needed a beacon.

Well enough to *know* it was lost? 

[phaonica]

Yeah, if he could see enough of the battle to know that it was lost, why could he not see enough of the battle to know when to engage? What was the point of the beacon?

[Sarah1281]

Is someone at the battlefield supposed to send a separate signal to whomever is already up at the beacon to light it?

Yes. Someone is supposed to send a signal that Duncan doesn't explain at all ("Oh, Alistair knows what it is") and Alistair doesn't see it but he thinks that they must have missed it since they're so late and lights the beacon.

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

Yeah, if he could see enough of the battle to know that it was lost, why could he not see enough of the battle to know when to engage? What was the point of the beacon?

Curious, ain't it? 

[Monica21]

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Yeah, if he could see enough of the battle to know that it was lost, why could he not see enough of the battle to know when to engage? What was the point of the beacon?

Curious, ain't it? 

No, I think it's just a shallow effort at showing a war council. I'm pretty sure there's more involved in battle preparations than "you hold, we'll flank." That's not even Risk level strategy.

[TJPags]

Monica21 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Yeah, if he could see enough of the battle to know that it was lost, why could he not see enough of the battle to know when to engage? What was the point of the beacon?

Curious, ain't it? 

No, I think it's just a shallow effort at showing a war council. I'm pretty sure there's more involved in battle preparations than "you hold, we'll flank." That's not even Risk level strategy.

yea, but that is a time honored and acceptable strategy  . . . of course there's more to it . . .where to hold, how to hold, what to do if you cant hold, where to flank from, when to flank, how to signal the flank attack   . . .

I get the impression that, at the war council, the details had already been worked out, and this was just a quick run through.