1092 réponses à ce sujet

[DragonRacer13]

CalJones wrote...

I'd go with that, Klarabella. Apart from the not losing sleep part - he clearly does, judging by the dark circles under his eyes. 

And becoming a Grey Warden ain't gonna make getting sleep aaaaannnnnyyyyyyy easier... poor Loghain! 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

@Dean - I don't think Loghain expected the battle to turn out like it did at that point, so while he might have had concern for Cailan fighting in the bloody front lines he believed the charge would be successful. By the time the signal is lit, even delayed, Cailan is still alive. He knew how to fight.



BUT, if we take the theory presented above, Loghain saw the signal delay as the opportunity to withdraw with his honour (presumably) intact. This would imply the betrayal at Ostagar was not premeditated per say, but Loghain was willing to take an opportunity when it presented itself.

[Dean_the_Young]

I'm not disputing the theory (I agree with most of it), just that one piece in particular. To say that Loghain only makes a half-hearted attempt to keep Cailan out of harm's way when it's clear that he and the king have been fighting this argument many, many times makes it impossible for Loghain to have ever acted sincerely in the matter: what else could he have done that would have marked him as sincere? One would think that a half-hearted attempt would imply that Loghain gave up after the first (few, perhaps) attempts, not that he would be fighting about it every time till the end.

[nos_astra]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
This would imply the betrayal at Ostagar was not premeditated per say, but Loghain was willing to take an opportunity when it presented itself.

Yes, that's the point. Loghain had thought about removing Cailan from power but he hadn't planned any actual steps. That's what Gaider said about Ostagar.

With the Orlesians at the border he probably abandoned the  whole south to preserve the army. His plan was to wait as long as possible, to settle things in Denerim, to find allies to help him fight the Darkspawn AND to keep Orlais outside. This is not entirely unsensible and makes a lot more sense than having him ignore the darkspawn threat entirely.

It's still treason.

With everyone being aware that Ostagar might be lost I can also see how Howe could slaughter the Couslands at this point (Fergus left with the troops before Howe's men attacked and would inform the King that Howe was delayed and will follow soon, so no one at Ostagar would be alarmed). So Howe counted on Ostagar being a desaster (but not necessarily a Blight because this would render Howe's plan futile) and Cailan being de-throned soon. Works perfectly without Loghain knowing about the attack on Castle Cousland.

@ Dean:
Cailan fought at the frontlines and he obviously knew that the battle might be lost. If you fight in a battle you can be killed. Rather convenient if the fool gets himself killed, don't you think?

Modifié par klarabella, 18 août 2010 - 01:51 .

[phaonica]

klarabella wrote...

You know what is very likely? Everyone was aware that the next fight might be lost. From RTO we know even Cailan was aware of it, so was Loghain.

They fought because if they didn't the horde would advance and it would not be easier to keep it in check. They could have delayed the battle for a couple of days, maybe two weeks, but eventually it was inevitable. They had a large portion of the army gathered at a strategic position and waiting could also have meant losing the advantage of terrain.

Is this agreeable so far?

I guess so. I'm no strategist myself so it's hard for me to imagine that if Loghain already thinks that the next battle could be lost then having a large portion of the army overrun by darkspawn doesn't seem like the best way to hold a strategic position. He might have slowed them down, but the army has been overrun, and doesn't live to fight another day. Nor does it seem like the best way to go about assassinating the king, because again it necessitates part of the army being overrun.

So does Loghain make a plan that allows just enough of the army to be sacrificed as is needed to slow down the darkspawn, then takes the rest of them with him 'into cover' so that he can retreat if he decides to?

[Dean_the_Young]

klarabella wrote...
@ Dean:
Cailan fought at the frontlines and he obviously knew that the battle might be lost. If you fight in a battle you can be killed. Rather convenient if the fool gets himself killed, don't you think?

Which just highlights how bizaar this aspect of 'it was all preconceived conspiracy' is because if Loghain had intended for Cailan to die on the front lines all along, he wouldn't have kept raising an objection to it on those very grounds. If he were a conspirator, just by quietly letting Cailan win that argument after a 'half-hearted' objection would have saved himself a lot of trouble and grief by avoiding an argument over and over again, and he never would have risked undoing his own convenient assassination-by-battle by giving Cailan the chance to actually make the sounder decision.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

@klarabella - Yes, agreed again. This all sounds plausible and fits. It's still treason.



@Dean - Half-hearted attempts to keep Cailan out of danger doesn't mean Loghain wasn't sincere. He does have a duty to protect his king as much as he can, but that duty is confounded by the fact he also has to obey his king. So Loghain says his piece but perhaps knows from experience he won't get anywhere, so he doesn't make a strenuous argument (at least when the PC sees him). Maybe you'd prefer substituting 'half-hearted' with 'token'? At least he said something at all.



@phaonica - It's hard to know. There have been debates about the strategy and tactics used at Ostagar, and basically we're seeing the whole thing from an uninformed perspective. We know a few key points only, which isn't nearly enough to get a bird's eye view of the battlefield (plus Loghain's men were all supposed to be mounted, but we saw them on foot due to game art restrictions. Horses make a huge difference). I personally don't think that Loghain planned ahead. The battle went poorly, there were *way* more darkspawn than expected, the beacon was delayed, darkspawn got behind the front lines and into Ostagar (tunnels beneath the Tower of Ishal)...everything went to crap. He couldn't know.



So was he opportunistic and allowed Cailan to be overrun when waiting for the beacon? Or did he truly need the beacon to know when to charge, but get intelligence from elsewhere that the battle was hopeless before doing so (scouts)?



Either way it's treason that he didn't obey his orders and charge, but it makes a small moral difference to Loghain's character, whether or not he was planning to move against Cailan at a later date. The ambiguity of the situation is what made it interesting.

[Monica21]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Which just highlights how bizaare this aspect of 'it was all preconceived conspiracy' is because if Loghain had intended for Cailan to die on the front lines all along, he wouldn't have kept raising an objection to it on those very grounds. If he were a conspirator, just by quietly letting Cailan win that argument after a 'half-hearted' objection would have saved himself a lot of trouble and grief by avoiding an argument over and over again, and he never would have risked undoing his own convenient assassination-by-battle by giving Cailan the chance to actually make the sounder decision.

I don't think that Loghain was fully committed to this nefarious plot until the beacon was late and he saw the size of the horde, or even just the beacon if he couldn't see the battlefield. It depends entirely on too many "what if" scenarios to really ring true that Loghain plotted Cailan's death at Ostagar. There are more than a few ways Cailan could have survived Ostagar, and not being with the Wardens is at least one.

I said this earlier in the thread, but Loghain could tell by Cailan's temperament and his own actions that he'd end up dead and leave the kingdom without an heir. Before Ostagar, the only thing Loghain is guilty of is quietly plotting to consolidate power for the day that happens. Loghain never pushed Cailan onto the sword, he threw himself on it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...



@Dean - Half-hearted attempts to keep Cailan out of danger doesn't mean Loghain wasn't sincere. He does have a duty to protect his king as much as he can, but that duty is confounded by the fact he also has to obey his king. So Loghain says his piece but perhaps knows from experience he won't get anywhere, so he doesn't make a strenuous argument (at least when the PC sees him). Maybe you'd prefer substituting 'half-hearted' with 'token'? At least he said something at all.

Again, how was Loghain's attempt half-hearted? What could he have possibly have done that wouldn't be immediately maligned as 'only' a token attempt? You're proposing about as fair or objective a standard as the question 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?'

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Again, how was Loghain's attempt half-hearted? What could he have possibly have done that wouldn't be immediately maligned as 'only' a token attempt? You're proposing about as fair or objective a standard as the question 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?'

Half-Hearted 
–adjective
having or showing little enthusiasm.

(dictionary.com)

Seems to fit the bill. I don't see why you're arguing it so hard. Why would Loghain argue passionately each and every time Cailan wanted to do something dangerous? He knows it's a waste of breath.

(edit - fixed format)

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 18 août 2010 - 11:58 .

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Maybe the guy sending the signal is the one making the judgement call based on Loghain's 'this is winnable'/'this is a lost cause' criteria. He sends one signal to light the beacon and one not to so no one around him wonders why he's not sending the signal and does it for him.

Some unknown guy making this call?  Not sure I'd buy that.

phaonica wrote...

I can perhaps picture this in my head:

The battle hasn't begun yet, and Loghain is settling the army in it's position of cover. Then he waits. From his positition, he *can* see the darkspawn army pass him as they head towards Cailan's frontline. As they pass him, before they even get to the "battlefield" he starts to realize that the horde is too big, that this plan isn't going to work, and he doesn't have time, or he doesn't think anyone could get around the approaching darkspawn to warn the frontline.  From his view, the battle is lost before it even started, and when the beacon is late... he knows that's because the darkspawn were more overwhelming than anticipated. He decides to salvage who he can, and that does not include Cailan's frontline.

I know there is nothing in the game to support any of this theorizing, but I felt like if the beacon was truely needed, then it would be because Loghain couldn't see the field well enough to know when to engage, and if he couldn't see the field well enough to engage, then he couldn't see the field well enough to claim that the battle was lost.

Here's my problem with this:  If he made the decision as the darkspawn passed him to engage Caillan, why did he stay there and wait until the beacon was lit to leave?  Why not leave as soon as they passed him, or as soon as they engaged?  Staying runs the risk that the beacon is lit on time, and people know it, and some of those people may escape.  Also runs the risk that the darkspawn may spot his withdrawal and engage him, making his retreat risky.

The whole waiting until the beacon is actually lit - even though it's late - bothers me.

klarabella wrote...
You know what is very likely? Everyone was aware that the next fight might be lost. From RTO we know even Cailan was aware of it, so was Loghain.

They fought because if they didn't the horde would advance and it would not be easier to keep it in check. They could have delayed the battle for a couple of days, maybe two weeks, but eventually it was inevitable. They had a large portion of the army gathered at a strategic position and waiting could also have meant losing the advantage of terrain.

Is this agreeable so far?

Agreeable to here.

klarabella wrote...
Now. Loghain is extremely displeased with Cailan and his idea of asking the Orlesians for help. Cailan is a fool and expandable. He makes a half-hearted attempt to keep Cailan from the frontlines but Cailan refuses. Loghain is not going to lose any sleep over it.

The battle starts. Loghain is not in a position to judge the size or progress of the horde because obviously he needs the beacon to know when to charge. He's already half of a mind to teach Cailan a lesson, to get rid of the Wardens but he still has not decided yet. He's a man of honor and knows full well that straying from the battle plan will be considered treason.

The tower is overun, the signal is delayed. Maybe he hopes at this point that the signal is not going to be lit at all, giving him an out without compromising his honor. But the beacon is lit. At this moment Loghain needs to make up his mind, follow the original plan or ignore the signal. He subsequently convinces himself that the battle would have been lost anyway (which may be true or not, Loghain can't know that but he won't admit this, probably not even to himself).

That's exactly what we saw in the cutscenes. Loghain is no monster, he's really a tragic figure to decide something like that, but not a villain. It's still treason, though.

Agree with what's in here, except for the part about him being a tragic figure.  I see nothing tragic in this, given that we're assuming he's annoyed at Caillan, feels he's expendable, and convinces himself that the battle can't be won.

[Dean_the_Young]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Again, how was Loghain's attempt half-hearted? What could he have possibly have done that wouldn't be immediately maligned as 'only' a token attempt? You're proposing about as fair or objective a standard as the question 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?'

Half-Hearted 
–adjective
having or showing little enthusiasm.

(dictionary.com)

Seems to fit the bill. I don't see why you're arguing it so hard. Why would Loghain argue passionately each and every time Cailan wanted to do something dangerous? He knows it's a waste of breath.

(edit - fixed format)

Half-hearted also has contextual meanings as well: not really trying, inscincere, lazy, or even just not an honest attempt. It means far more than 'unenthusiastic', which would be a far more precise word to use if that was all you were intending to say.

[Dean_the_Young]

jln.francisco wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Again, how was Loghain's attempt half-hearted? What could he have possibly have done that wouldn't be immediately maligned as 'only' a token attempt? You're proposing about as fair or objective a standard as the question 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?'

I answered a similar question on another Loghain thread a while back.

If you have problems with your commander's plans, you don't take them out by abandoning him in the middle of a fight. Loghain could have easily excused himself and his men before Cailan did any of this and I'm sure given the uncentralized government of the time, he'd have gotten away with it. Cailan would not have had Loghain's heavy infantry to count amongst his numbers and would have ditched the plan then and there. If Loghain had an issue with some kind of Orlesian coup, he would have retained his full numbers and begun rallying soldiers back at his estate to prepare for it. (plus he would have had his daughter to marshal political support if Cailan's naivity started to get the better of him) Cailan would have had his Gray Wardens, Eamon's Knights and the Orlesian chevaliers (and believe me you are not the only ones who hate them) as well as the Circle of Magi to bring down the Blight.

Loghain could have done a lot of things differently. The fact his decisions end up costing everyone so much and do nothing to improve the situation is why I view everything he does with a skeptical eye and have no qualms killing him. He really is a liability.

That..  completely ignored all of my question entirely, unless you answer is 'if he sincerely thinks Cailan shouldn't be at the front, he should have left Ostagar with his armies.' Which, I suppose, is an answer, but one as disproportionate and not inherently reasonable as much of the rest of your proposal.

[Dean_the_Young]

jln.francisco wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Again, how was Loghain's attempt half-hearted? What could he have possibly have done that wouldn't be immediately maligned as 'only' a token attempt? You're proposing about as fair or objective a standard as the question 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?'

Half-Hearted 
–adjective
having or showing little enthusiasm.

(dictionary.com)

Seems to fit the bill. I don't see why you're arguing it so hard. Why would Loghain argue passionately each and every time Cailan wanted to do something dangerous? He knows it's a waste of breath.

(edit - fixed format)

Half-hearted also has contextual meanings as well: not really trying, inscincere, lazy, or even just not an honest attempt. It means far more than 'unenthusiastic', which would be a far more precise word to use if that was all you were intending to say.

That's the emotional response you have to the word, not what the word means.

No, that's pretty much how the word is also used. Half-hearted is a word packed with connotation, just as the word **** (edit: or ******) doesn't just mean a black person.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 19 août 2010 - 12:38 .

[Dean_the_Young]

jln.francisco wrote...

Agree with what's in here, except for the part about him being a tragic figure. I see nothing tragic in this, given that we're assuming he's annoyed at Caillan, feels he's expendable, and convinces himself that the battle can't be won.

A tragic hero is defined by his poor judgement (or lapse in judgement) where everything else he does 'good' or 'pure.' Just because someone is a tragic hero does not make them immune to criticism or make them ultimately 'good.' You could make the case for Jowan being a tragic hero, if on a much less epic scale then Loghain.

Even more fundamentally, a tragic hero is defined as a person who has many good virtues we approve of and is generally a respectable and even ideal man or woman, but one particular virtue in excess (aka the tragic flaw) has all his other virtues bringing him down into something truly pathetic.

Loghain's tragic flaw is his suspicion. It's well founded, has served him well for many decades, and has often proven correct time and time again, complementing such traits as a limitless will, a refusal to give up in what he thinks is right, and a genuine love for his country. But, once that virtue was in excess, all the rest of his traits worked against everything he held dear.

[Sarah1281]

jln.francisco wrote...



I answered a similar question on another Loghain thread a while back.

You're starting to see how repetitive these threads are already?

Some unknown guy making this call? Not sure I'd buy that.

Well how else does the situation make any sense? Loghain wants his men stationed at the Tower in case they aren't supposed to light the beacon. How would they know whether or not to light it from up there? Loghain can't give the signal because if he's signalling the beacon then there's no point in HAVING a beacon. Somone who can see the situation and is close enough to either know to send the signal or to be ordered to send the signal would be much better to see if the battle is winnable from Loghain's perspective and whether or not to have the beacon lit.

[phaonica]

jln.francisco wrote...

It would have kept Cailan from engaging the darkspawn head on, it would have preserved his soldiers (which seems to be the whole reason everyone here thinks he was justified in abandoning the battlefield) and it would have left him, Howe and his allies more then enough men to prevent an Orlesian coup. I don't see what's so unreasonable about it. It seems entirely practical and much less messy then sacrificing the entire south.

How would you have kept him from the front line? Knock him out? Tie him up and put him in a closet until the battle is over? Or count on your unlimited powers as The Hero of this Story, to talk him out of it?

[Dean_the_Young]

jln.francisco wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Again, how was Loghain's attempt half-hearted? What could he have possibly have done that wouldn't be immediately maligned as 'only' a token attempt? You're proposing about as fair or objective a standard as the question 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?'

I answered a similar question on another Loghain thread a while back.

If you have problems with your commander's plans, you don't take them out by abandoning him in the middle of a fight. Loghain could have easily excused himself and his men before Cailan did any of this and I'm sure given the uncentralized government of the time, he'd have gotten away with it. Cailan would not have had Loghain's heavy infantry to count amongst his numbers and would have ditched the plan then and there. If Loghain had an issue with some kind of Orlesian coup, he would have retained his full numbers and begun rallying soldiers back at his estate to prepare for it. (plus he would have had his daughter to marshal political support if Cailan's naivity started to get the better of him) Cailan would have had his Gray Wardens, Eamon's Knights and the Orlesian chevaliers (and believe me you are not the only ones who hate them) as well as the Circle of Magi to bring down the Blight.

Loghain could have done a lot of things differently. The fact his decisions end up costing everyone so much and do nothing to improve the situation is why I view everything he does with a skeptical eye and have no qualms killing him. He really is a liability.

That..  completely ignored all of my question entirely, unless you answer is 'if he sincerely thinks Cailan shouldn't be at the front, he should have left Ostagar with his armies.' Which, I suppose, is an answer, but one as disproportionate and not inherently reasonable as much of the rest of your proposal.

It would have kept Cailan from engaging the darkspawn head on, it would have preserved his soldiers (which seems to be the whole reason everyone here thinks he was justified in abandoning the battlefield) and it would have left him, Howe and his allies more then enough men to prevent an Orlesian coup. I don't see what's so unreasonable about it. It seems entirely practical and much less messy then sacrificing the entire south.

Then you don't know what moving half an army over a squabble of leadership location means, both militarily and politically. The most approachable analogy I can think of is if during the World Cup finals Spain had walked off the field right before the match began because the referee refused to initiate the match while on their side of the field. Only far larger consequences, and far more petty.

While Loghain didn't like parts of it, the upcoming battle itself wasn't the problem: the darkspawn are a legitimate threat to be faced. It was Cailan's decisions about it that were the issue. The battle itself still serves a legitimate purpose (a chance to beat the Darkspawn hoard) that Loghain doesn't have to abandon just to force Cailan to back out of danger. Quiting the field over a personal difference overwhere Cailan stands does not mark Loghain sincere: it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The reason that Loghain can (might, for your sake) be justified to leaving is not one he knows ahead of time: that the hoard at Ostagar is far larger than it was thought, making the prior plan unfeasible.


If Loghain walks off the field with his army to garrison the Orleasian border or whatever at Loghain's estate, the South is not spared. There is stll only half a dedicated army to defend against the blight (the other half with Loghain guarding against whatever), and you have even hindered the Hoard in the least because Ostagar would have fallen without a fight as without Loghain Cailen never had the men to make any sort of stand. Ostagar falls, and all Cailen can do (other than fight a heroic suicide stand, making Loghain resort to the default) is fall back much as Loghain did. At this point, however, the Civil War is still coming about: Loghain is going to be pronounced a traitor for abandoning the King and the Blight, Loghain is going to stay futter you and press forward with his alliances such as in the Circle of Magi, and there is no united Ferelden Army to defend the South from the Wilds because Cailan first has to enforce his own authority much as Loghain had to do, only this time with Loghain as his public and political enemy.

[Dean_the_Young]

phaonica wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

It would have kept Cailan from engaging the darkspawn head on, it would have preserved his soldiers (which seems to be the whole reason everyone here thinks he was justified in abandoning the battlefield) and it would have left him, Howe and his allies more then enough men to prevent an Orlesian coup. I don't see what's so unreasonable about it. It seems entirely practical and much less messy then sacrificing the entire south.

How would you have kept him from the front line? Knock him out? Tie him up and put him in a closet until the battle is over? Or count on your unlimited powers as The Hero of this Story, to talk him out of it?

The current proposal seems to be for Loghain to march away with half the army from Ostagar.

Granted, Cailan would be alive (or else be an even bigger idiot in making some heroic defense), but it looses all proportion after that since it immediately leads into the Civil War/conflict since Loghain at this point has openly said '**** you' to the King's authority. Apparently at this point Loghain sincerely not wanting Cailan to be at the front could only be demonstrated by preventing the entire battle.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 19 août 2010 - 01:00 .