1092 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

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.

But nothing else Loghain does in game is 'good' or 'pure'.  He may have been so in the books, but in game?  Nope.

[Dean_the_Young]

jln.francisco wrote...

@Dean I just wanted to point out that the situation you see as my alternative leading to, is exactly the sitaution Fereldan is in because of Loghain's decision. The south is wiped out by the darkspawn, a civil war is brewing amongst the banorn and the darkspawn horde is perfectly intact. the only difference is, everyone has their soldiers and there are at least a score of wardens left living to go and recruit the Dalish, Dwarves and Mages (as Duncan intended to do judging from the mission he gives you in the Kocari Wilds.)

And it's a completely laughable scenario because it relies on Tyrn Loghain throwing a hissy fit and acting the part of a petulant child, opening the entire country of Ferelden (you know, that place he would do anything for) to a risk that could have been because Cailan refuses to be safer in battle.

All this, mind you, because it would mark Loghain as sincere about concern for Cailan's health. Completely ignorring that doing so makes him put one man above the country, something antithetical to the very core of his character.

And you still do not see what's unreasonable about this?

[phaonica]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

If Loghain had left and refused to fight, Cailan could have been prepared to replace Loghain's troops with Orlesian ones. Or Loghain might have been stripped of his title, and his troops would be forced to decide whether to defy the king or follow Loghain away. In the first instance, Cailan is potentially left alive, but the country is vulnerable to Orlesian invasion (which they can only *hope* won't occur). In the second place, Loghain leaves Cailan behind to make the battle plans himself, and (assuming Cailan's strategies consisting of himself on the frontline) likely getting the whole army destroyed (and again vulnerable to invasion).

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

So...what is your point in all this? Are you trying to say Loghain *was* sincerely and determinedly trying to to keep Cailan out of the front lines with his 'Your desire for glory will be the death of you' crack?

I'm using half-hearted in the context that Loghain's already tried many times and has given up that he'll be listened to. *shrug*

[Dean_the_Young]

TJPags wrote...

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.

But nothing else Loghain does in game is 'good' or 'pure'.  He may have been so in the books, but in game?  Nope.

The basis of this claim being...?

Good ain't nice, and purity has nothing to do with either.

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

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.

The situation itself doesn't make sense.

Loghain apparently doesn't decide to leave until the last minute, according to Gaider or some other dev . yet his VO notes from when you first arrive at Ostagar tell us he KNOWS Caillan won't survive.

There needs to be a beacon to tell him when to attack, which means he can't see the battle.  But he wants his men there, in case he decides to tell them not to light the beacon.  No way for him to know that, since if he can see to make that decision, he doesn't need the neacon.

He needs the beacon to tell him when to attack, yet he can decide at that point if the battle can be won or lost?  Based on what, other than his own personal feelings about whether he wants to attack or not? 

If we agree he needs the beacon because he can't see the battle, he can't see to make this decision.  If he can see to make this decision, he doesn't need the beacon. 

The writers backed themselves into a corner with a situation that makes no sense, and with conflicting additional information (the VO notes, Gaiders opinion).  That's exactly the problem here.

[Dean_the_Young]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

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.

So...what is your point in all this? Are you trying to say Loghain *was* sincerely and determinedly trying to to keep Cailan out of the front lines with his 'Your desire for glory will be the death of you' crack?

No, I'm saying Loghain was sincerly trying to keep Cailan out of the front lines of the diversion force by the process of once again protesting about it.

Loghain was never trying to keep Cailan out of the battle. He was trying to put Cailan, at least, with the Cavalry. It was only Cailan's own insistence that put him beside the Grey Wardens. It was an argument that came more than just during a single crack.

I'm using half-hearted in the context that Loghain's already tried many times and has given up that he'll be listened to. *shrug*

I have no idea where you thought I was talking about your usage, since my reply was focused on klarabella's post, which used it in the context of a Loghain conspiracy to let Cailan get killed from the start.

[TJPags]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

@Dean I just wanted to point out that the situation you see as my alternative leading to, is exactly the sitaution Fereldan is in because of Loghain's decision. The south is wiped out by the darkspawn, a civil war is brewing amongst the banorn and the darkspawn horde is perfectly intact. the only difference is, everyone has their soldiers and there are at least a score of wardens left living to go and recruit the Dalish, Dwarves and Mages (as Duncan intended to do judging from the mission he gives you in the Kocari Wilds.)

And it's a completely laughable scenario because it relies on Tyrn Loghain throwing a hissy fit and acting the part of a petulant child, opening the entire country of Ferelden (you know, that place he would do anything for) to a risk that could have been because Cailan refuses to be safer in battle.

All this, mind you, because it would mark Loghain as sincere about concern for Cailan's health. Completely ignorring that doing so makes him put one man above the country, something antithetical to the very core of his character.

And you still do not see what's unreasonable about this?

Leaving before the battle opens the country to this risk, but doing so when he does it doesn't open the country to the same risk?

[TJPags]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

TJPags wrote...

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.

But nothing else Loghain does in game is 'good' or 'pure'.  He may have been so in the books, but in game?  Nope.

The basis of this claim being...?

Good ain't nice, and purity has nothing to do with either.

Tell me one good, pure thing he does, please.

Making himself regent?  Allowing Howe to lock up and kill nobles?  Selling people into slavery?  Fighting a civil war rather than let the nobles choose a new leader?  Poisoning Eamon?  Hiring assasins?  Lying about the Grey Wardens?

Which of those was good and pure?  Or did I miss one?

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

So...what is your point in all this? Are you trying to say Loghain *was* sincerely and determinedly trying to to keep Cailan out of the front lines with his 'Your desire for glory will be the death of you' crack?[/quote]

No, I'm saying Loghain was sincerly trying to keep Cailan out of the front lines of the diversion force by the process of once again protesting about it.

Loghain was never trying to keep Cailan out of the battle. He was trying to put Cailan, at least, with the Cavalry. It was only Cailan's own insistence that put him beside the Grey Wardens. It was an argument that came more than just during a single crack. [/quote]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. My single crack comment is due to the fact it's the only one we hear, and it does not sound particularly enthusiastic (to me, at least).

As far as sincerity is concerned, I don't think we can know for sure without David Gaider telling us. You might be right, or Loghain may indeed be thinking at that point that the darkspawn would be doing Ferelden a favour by killing a glory-hunting monarch (especially if it means inviting Orlesians back over the borders).

[quote]
I'm using half-hearted in the context that Loghain's already tried many times and has given up that he'll be listened to. *shrug*[/quote]

I have no idea where you thought I was talking about your usage, since my reply was focused on klarabella's post, which used it in the context of a Loghain conspiracy to let Cailan get killed from the start.
[/quote]

The wonders of getting lost in quotes and the fun of debate, I guess. My apologies.

[Sarah1281]

Tell me one good, pure thing he does, please.



Making himself regent? Allowing Howe to lock up and kill nobles? Selling people into slavery? Fighting a civil war rather than let the nobles choose a new leader? Poisoning Eamon? Hiring assasins? Lying about the Grey Wardens?



Which of those was good and pure? Or did I miss one?

...He just said pure has nothing to do with it. So your question should really be 'name one good thing he does.' Why in the world are you expecting any leader or anyone with any power at all to be 'pure' anyway?

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Tell me one good, pure thing he does, please.

Making himself regent? Allowing Howe to lock up and kill nobles? Selling people into slavery? Fighting a civil war rather than let the nobles choose a new leader? Poisoning Eamon? Hiring assasins? Lying about the Grey Wardens?

Which of those was good and pure? Or did I miss one?

...He just said pure has nothing to do with it. So your question should really be 'name one good thing he does.' Why in the world are you expecting any leader or anyone with any power at all to be 'pure' anyway?

The definition we're working with here is "good or pure".

You and Dean want to argue that good isn't necessarily pure, that's one thing.

yet I'm still waiting for at least something good, or something pure . . .

[Sarah1281]

TJPags wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Tell me one good, pure thing he does, please.

Making himself regent? Allowing Howe to lock up and kill nobles? Selling people into slavery? Fighting a civil war rather than let the nobles choose a new leader? Poisoning Eamon? Hiring assasins? Lying about the Grey Wardens?

Which of those was good and pure? Or did I miss one?

...He just said pure has nothing to do with it. So your question should really be 'name one good thing he does.' Why in the world are you expecting any leader or anyone with any power at all to be 'pure' anyway?

The definition we're working with here is "good or pure".

You and Dean want to argue that good isn't necessarily pure, that's one thing.

yet I'm still waiting for at least something good, or something pure . . .

Good and pure aren't interchangable. At all. Loghain tries to stop the Blight, he tries to keep the country together, he tries to prevent anyone from taking advantage of the countries weakened state to invade. He doesn't succeed (except, perhaps, with the last one) but not succeeding shouldn't make his effort meaningless.

[TJPags]

He doesn't do anything that we see to defeat the blight (that he didn't believe in for most of the game remember), the country WAS together and only fractured because of what he did, and there was nobody trying to take advantage of it's weakened state (a state it was in only because of him).



So try again - none of that qualifies as good IMO.

[Dean_the_Young]

TJPags wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

@Dean I just wanted to point out that the situation you see as my alternative leading to, is exactly the sitaution Fereldan is in because of Loghain's decision. The south is wiped out by the darkspawn, a civil war is brewing amongst the banorn and the darkspawn horde is perfectly intact. the only difference is, everyone has their soldiers and there are at least a score of wardens left living to go and recruit the Dalish, Dwarves and Mages (as Duncan intended to do judging from the mission he gives you in the Kocari Wilds.)

And it's a completely laughable scenario because it relies on Tyrn Loghain throwing a hissy fit and acting the part of a petulant child, opening the entire country of Ferelden (you know, that place he would do anything for) to a risk that could have been because Cailan refuses to be safer in battle.

All this, mind you, because it would mark Loghain as sincere about concern for Cailan's health. Completely ignorring that doing so makes him put one man above the country, something antithetical to the very core of his character.

And you still do not see what's unreasonable about this?

Leaving before the battle opens the country to this risk, but doing so when he does it doesn't open the country to the same risk?

Rephrase the question: you aren't clear. But I'll take a gander that you're missing what this started about: what sort of action Loghain could do that wouldn't be demeaned as fake concern for Cailan's health.

These two times to leave are not equal choices: one would be a premeditated choice before the battle is joined, and the other is a reaction to changing circumstances in the field. The first is willingly and freely choosing the worse choice when a better openly exists: the other is reacting and choosing the least bad when a better one isn't apparent.

Leaving the before the battle is done, and thus allowing the opportunity of deliberation, planning, and better foresight to predict, presents many downfalls that can be avoided simply by taking the chance to win the battle. Nothing is solved but the single question of keeping Cailan alive... something that is not even the issue in the first place. (The issue being Cailan's unnecessary risk, not moving him from any risk at all.) From this position, taking the battle plan is the less needlessly risky choice.

Taking the battle is not done with the presumption of loss. There is the honest chance for victory (not as clean or neat as Cailan invisions), and the darkspawn are a threat  to be addressed.

After the battle is met, however, there is no backing out. What the best (or least worst) course there is what the field looks to be. And the darkspawn surge through the tower, the unexpected size of the hoard, the change in the situation itself, changes the values. Fighting to Cailan is not a promise of victory and preserving the forces of Ferelden in the face of the Darkspawn and Orlais: it's the route to lose the ability to face either, regardless of whether Cailan survived or not. This is a judgement call that Loghain, as general appointed by the king, is responsible for making. And so at this point, cutting losses is the less disastrous choice.

[Sarah1281]

TJPags wrote...

He doesn't do anything that we see to defeat the blight (that he didn't believe in for most of the game remember), the country WAS together and only fractured because of what he did, and there was nobody trying to take advantage of it's weakened state (a state it was in only because of him).

So try again - none of that qualifies as good IMO.

He believed it was an incursion that needed to be defeated and called upon the mages and the dwarves to help (not his fault Uldred got possessed or the dwarves shut down the city). We can't conclusively say 'yes, and everyone would have fallen in line behind Anora/Eamon/whoever if it hadn't been for Loghain seizing the regency' as we haven't seen enough to say. That Loghain's actions helped spark the civil war is why he failed but he did try.

And it is not reasonable to say 'oh, well since something didn't happen that means that there was not a risk that it could have or that Loghain's obsessive border-guarding didn't play some role in that.' Maybe an invasion wasn't the most pressing concern but it was not outside the realm of possibility at all.

[Giggles_Manically]

People seem to forget that Orlasis is an EMPIRE.

Besides road building the biggest past time of empires is conquest.

[TJPags]

Sarah1281 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

He doesn't do anything that we see to defeat the blight (that he didn't believe in for most of the game remember), the country WAS together and only fractured because of what he did, and there was nobody trying to take advantage of it's weakened state (a state it was in only because of him).

So try again - none of that qualifies as good IMO.

He believed it was an incursion that needed to be defeated and called upon the mages and the dwarves to help (not his fault Uldred got possessed or the dwarves shut down the city). We can't conclusively say 'yes, and everyone would have fallen in line behind Anora/Eamon/whoever if it hadn't been for Loghain seizing the regency' as we haven't seen enough to say. That Loghain's actions helped spark the civil war is why he failed but he did try.

And it is not reasonable to say 'oh, well since something didn't happen that means that there was not a risk that it could have or that Loghain's obsessive border-guarding didn't play some role in that.' Maybe an invasion wasn't the most pressing concern but it was not outside the realm of possibility at all.

When did he try to get the Mages to help? (in game, please)  because I don't remember that.

The whole Orlais is going to invade thing - please stop with this.  There is no evidence Orlais was invading.  They had 1-2 years of game time to have invaded - they never did.  There was no invasion threat, except in his own warped, twisted, paranoid mind.  And where in game does it say Lghain has his troops guarding the border anyway?

He asked the dwarves for help.  Fine - we'll count that as his one good deed.  Yup - guy sure is tragic.

[TJPags]

jln.francisco wrote...

When did he try to get the Mages to help? (in game, please) because I don't remember that.

With Uldred. He promises to free the Circle if the mages aid him in his regency.

Really?  When does this take place?

[TJPags]

jln.francisco wrote...

When did he try to get the Mages to help? (in game, please) because I don't remember that.

With Uldred. He promises to free the Circle if the mages aid him in his regency.

The whole Orlais is going to invade thing - please stop with this.  There is no evidence Orlais was invading.  They had 1-2 years of game time to have invaded - they never did.  There was no invasion threat, except in his own warped, twisted, paranoid mind.  And where in game does it say Lghain has his troops guarding the border anyway?

Riordan mentions, I think, how there are soldiers turning away the Orlesian Wardens and any sizable force trying to enter the country. Don;t know if he means a full army but it's enough to keep the chevaliers parked just outside Fereldan's borders unwilling to make a move into the nation.

And we don't know those are Loghains men . . .and invaders don't stop because you ask them nicely.

[Sarah1281]

TJPags wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

He doesn't do anything that we see to defeat the blight (that he didn't believe in for most of the game remember), the country WAS together and only fractured because of what he did, and there was nobody trying to take advantage of it's weakened state (a state it was in only because of him).

So try again - none of that qualifies as good IMO.

He believed it was an incursion that needed to be defeated and called upon the mages and the dwarves to help (not his fault Uldred got possessed or the dwarves shut down the city). We can't conclusively say 'yes, and everyone would have fallen in line behind Anora/Eamon/whoever if it hadn't been for Loghain seizing the regency' as we haven't seen enough to say. That Loghain's actions helped spark the civil war is why he failed but he did try.

And it is not reasonable to say 'oh, well since something didn't happen that means that there was not a risk that it could have or that Loghain's obsessive border-guarding didn't play some role in that.' Maybe an invasion wasn't the most pressing concern but it was not outside the realm of possibility at all.

When did he try to get the Mages to help? (in game, please)  because I don't remember that.

The whole Orlais is going to invade thing - please stop with this.  There is no evidence Orlais was invading.  They had 1-2 years of game time to have invaded - they never did.  There was no invasion threat, except in his own warped, twisted, paranoid mind.  And where in game does it say Lghain has his troops guarding the border anyway?

He asked the dwarves for help.  Fine - we'll count that as his one good deed.  Yup - guy sure is tragic.

You don't remember that the whole catalyst for Uldred's blood mage revolution was Loghain promising support in the Cricle breaking away from the Chantry if they supplied him with troops and then Wynne was all 'OMG, guys, no! We can't listen to him! He retreated!' so Irving called a meeting and Uldred went crazy and started possessing people?

And I will absolutely NOT stop with the 'Orlais could invade' thing.

If you'll notice, I did not say that Loghain's actions alone stopped a definite Orlesian invasion which, yes, would be going too far. Orlais may or may not have wanted to invade and Loghain's actions may or may not have influenced this. The game does not say for sure one way or another. Say you're right and they've completely given up expanding their empire and retaking Ferelden forever. Their history of invading other countries including Ferelden means that it is not overly paranoid to acknowledge Orlais invading could be a possibility and taking steps to try and prevent it. Did he go overboard? Maybe. Is it completely irrational to fear an invasion at some point? Hardly.

And Loghain tells you all about how his forces were split and half of them waited at the border if you recruit him. We know he's not lying here because he explains that continuing to do this probably would have doomed the nation. Riordan also mentions it when he explains why he's the only Warden who came.