1092 réponses à ce sujet

[Khavos]

CalJones wrote...

There are many ways to view it, all valid. I'll admit I am more sympathetic towards Loghain but I don't condone all of his actions - many are undeniably reprehensible. However, I can't disagree with his decision to pull out of Ostagar, whether or not it was a deliberate ploy to get Cailan killed (and honestly, I don't think it was, given that he tried to talk Cailan out of joining the wardens on the front lines).

It's confirmed by Gaider that the retreat from Ostagar plan was put into place well before the battle actually started, with both Loghain and Uldred wanting to have their men in the tower to prevent the beacon being lit.

I'm also firmly on Loghain's side when it comes to refusing entry to the chevaliers. Were I a Fereldan woman, there's no way I would want several legions of heavily armoured rapists roaming the countryside.

All previous Blights lasted at least a decade, some much longer, with the taint they spread constantly twisting and deforming the land, the animals, the people, and took massive coalition armies to stop.  Your position appears to be that it would be far better to let all of Ferelden become a Blight-land like the majority of the Anderfels, where things simply do not grow or live due to the taint, even hundreds of years later, than let an army in to battle the Blight.  That's kind of bizarre, to me.

Frankly, if I were Orlesian and genuinely wanted to take over Ferelden again, turning away an Orlesian army intent on stopping the Blight would be the perfect gift.  The Fereldens were doing absolutely nothing to fight it at the time, their country was split in a civil war, they'd lost a great many soldiers at an entirely useless battle...and now they're preventing their neighbors from stopping a Blight that will eventually spill over into Orlais once it's done destroying Ferelden?  No other country on the continent would've had a problem with Orlais ignoring the ban on their entering and going in to take care of business.  A very strong argument could be made that a country whose response to the Blight is to fracture into civil war is a serious threat to everyone's safety and sovereignty, and thus needs a significant change in leadership. 

[Sarah1281]

It's confirmed by Gaider that the retreat from Ostagar plan was put into place well before the battle actually started, with both Loghain and Uldred wanting to have their men in the tower to prevent the beacon being lit.

No, it's been confirmed that he wanted his men or Uldred at the tower IN CASE he needed an excuse to retreat. That means that one of his contingency plans was to retreat and he didn't want to deal with the fallout of that. I'm not sure how the men at the Tower would know whether or not the beacon was supposed to be lit (perhaps the man sending the signal to light the beacon had orders not to send it under certain conditions and may very well not have sent it in-game. Alistair thinks they just missed the signal because they were so late but it's possible it never came) but it was only a possibility. How strong a possibility is up for debate but it wasn't a done deal until Loghain saw the beacon light and chose to leave anyway.

[Zjarcal]

Xandurpein wrote...

While I enjoy this kind of debates as long as they can be kept civil, I think it's always sad whenever someone reasons with statements like "I can't understand how anyone could ever want to kill/save/redeem this or that character." To me it just shows a closed mind not willing or able to think out of his or her own world of preconceptions.

I can think of many different scenarios for why someone, out of a sense of morality and justice, would want to kill Loghain on the spot, but also decide to allow him to join as a recruit to he Grey Wardens. It depends on so many different things.

How does you (your character) feel about the Grey Wardens? Do you think becoming a Grey Warden is an honor (like Alistair do) or do you feel it's a punishment. I can see many good reasons why both views could be perfectly viable. There is no "good" or "evil" to such a feeling, but it can certainly affect your decision about Loghain's fate.

What is your personal sense of justice? Justice is NOT an absolute, however much we want to believe so. How do you (your character) feels about capital punishment? Personally I'm against it, but I don't call people evil just because they feel differently. Do you believe in eye-for-an-eye justice or in redeeming criminals so they can contribute to society?

A human noble can marry Anora and feel honor bound to do what he can to use "minimum force" in stopping Loghain, for her sake.

Sparing Loghain or not is not a simple choice between "good" and "evil". It's a question that can have everything to do with your personal sense of justice, whatever it may be, or it can be question of political expediency. Either way it will have different answers for different people and for different reasons. Just because one person can't see myself ever sparing him, doesn't mean someone else isn't justified in doing so, or that one of them needs to have made an "evil" choice.

Ah, the voice of reason has returned. 

[maxernst]

Personally, the first question that I had to ask was whether I can trust Loghain. I don't trust people who go from "you're an evil Orlesian agent" to "Ferelden's fate is safe in your hands" in five minutes for no apparent reason. How does beating him (or having a companion beat him) in combat prove I'm not an Orlesian agent?

[Sarah1281]

maxernst wrote...

Personally, the first question that I had to ask was whether I can trust Loghain. I don't trust people who go from "you're an evil Orlesian agent" to "Ferelden's fate is safe in your hands" in five minutes for no apparent reason. How does beating him (or having a companion beat him) in combat prove I'm not an Orlesian agent?

Denial that an Orlesian agent could beat him? 

[maxernst]

You could have a point there--the guy has a colossal ego.

[Khavos]

Sarah1281 wrote...
No, it's been confirmed that he wanted his men or Uldred at the tower IN CASE he needed an excuse to retreat.

So he wanted his men or Uldred at the tower in case he wanted to retreat.  Did he try to make that happen before the battle or during it? 

Thus his plan was in place prior to the battle.  I'm not sure why you're trying to contradict things you admit yourself. 

[Sarah1281]

Khavos wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
No, it's been confirmed that he wanted his men or Uldred at the tower IN CASE he needed an excuse to retreat.

So he wanted his men or Uldred at the tower in case he wanted to retreat.  Did he try to make that happen before the battle or during it? 

Thus his plan was in place prior to the battle.  I'm not sure why you're trying to contradict things you admit yourself. 

You're making it sound like Loghain was always going to do exactly what he did and leave Cailan. I'm of the belief that the whole 'in case it was needed' means that while that was something he did plan for before the battle, it wasn't something he had already decided was going to definitely happen. Why does it matter? Making a split-second decision to leave (even if he had already made it a possibility earlier) sound a lot less cold than saying 'yes, Cailan, it will be a glorious day for us all now go on over there with the rest of the troops I'm going to leave to die before even seeing how the battle's going.'

[Khavos]

Sarah1281 wrote...
You're making it sound like Loghain was always going to do exactly what he did and leave Cailan. I'm of the belief that the whole 'in case it was needed' means that while that was something he did plan for before the battle, it wasn't something he had already decided was going to definitely happen. Why does it matter? Making a split-second decision to leave (even if he had already made it a possibility earlier) sound a lot less cold than saying 'yes, Cailan, it will be a glorious day for us all now go on over there with the rest of the troops I'm going to leave to die before even seeing how the battle's going.'

It does sound a lot less cold, yes.  However, that's not the case.

Loghain planned to take power from Cailan well before Ostagar.  Loghain poisoned Eamon well before Ostagar.  Loghain was in bed with Howe well before Ostagar.  Loghain put a plan in place that would allow him to walk away from the battle and leave Cailan to die well before the battle of Ostagar started.  All of this is confirmed.

Just to put this in perspective, let's say I was planning to assassinate someone.  I buy the rifle, I figure out where they're going to be on a certain day, I bribe their bodyguards to give myself a clear shot, I pick out a position on some rooftop.  If I do it and later say, "Well, to be honest, I didn't make the decision to actually shoot the guy until the very second I pulled the trigger, so it's not that bad," I don't think anyone would buy it.  Loghain put a plan in place that would allow him to leave Cailan to die.  When he actually chose to go through with it is irrelevent - he went through with it. 

[Marcy3655]

Khavos wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
You're making it sound like Loghain was always going to do exactly what he did and leave Cailan. I'm of the belief that the whole 'in case it was needed' means that while that was something he did plan for before the battle, it wasn't something he had already decided was going to definitely happen. Why does it matter? Making a split-second decision to leave (even if he had already made it a possibility earlier) sound a lot less cold than saying 'yes, Cailan, it will be a glorious day for us all now go on over there with the rest of the troops I'm going to leave to die before even seeing how the battle's going.'

It does sound a lot less cold, yes.  However, that's not the case.

Loghain planned to take power from Cailan well before Ostagar.  Loghain poisoned Eamon well before Ostagar.  Loghain was in bed with Howe well before Ostagar.  Loghain put a plan in place that would allow him to walk away from the battle and leave Cailan to die well before the battle of Ostagar started.  All of this is confirmed.

Just to put this in perspective, let's say I was planning to assassinate someone.  I buy the rifle, I figure out where they're going to be on a certain day, I bribe their bodyguards to give myself a clear shot, I pick out a position on some rooftop.  If I do it and later say, "Well, to be honest, I didn't make the decision to actually shoot the guy until the very second I pulled the trigger, so it's not that bad," I don't think anyone would buy it.  Loghain put a plan in place that would allow him to leave Cailan to die.  When he actually chose to go through with it is irrelevent - he went through with it. 

Indeed...

M

[Sarah1281]

Khavos wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
You're making it sound like Loghain was always going to do exactly what he did and leave Cailan. I'm of the belief that the whole 'in case it was needed' means that while that was something he did plan for before the battle, it wasn't something he had already decided was going to definitely happen. Why does it matter? Making a split-second decision to leave (even if he had already made it a possibility earlier) sound a lot less cold than saying 'yes, Cailan, it will be a glorious day for us all now go on over there with the rest of the troops I'm going to leave to die before even seeing how the battle's going.'

It does sound a lot less cold, yes.  However, that's not the case.

Loghain planned to take power from Cailan well before Ostagar.  Loghain poisoned Eamon well before Ostagar.  Loghain was in bed with Howe well before Ostagar.  Loghain put a plan in place that would allow him to walk away from the battle and leave Cailan to die well before the battle of Ostagar started.  All of this is confirmed.

Just to put this in perspective, let's say I was planning to assassinate someone.  I buy the rifle, I figure out where they're going to be on a certain day, I bribe their bodyguards to give myself a clear shot, I pick out a position on some rooftop.  If I do it and later say, "Well, to be honest, I didn't make the decision to actually shoot the guy until the very second I pulled the trigger, so it's not that bad," I don't think anyone would buy it.  Loghain put a plan in place that would allow him to leave Cailan to die.  When he actually chose to go through with it is irrelevent - he went through with it. 

I'm not sure that's a fair analogy. Loghain was planning making Cailan less of a threat, yes, but not necessarily by killing him. He took Cailan's allies out first which, if he were just going to kill him, seems unnecessary. It seems like what he was planning was to:
A)  Isolate him from his strongest supporters and then browbeat him into seeing Loghain's POV about the Orlesians (he knew Cailan was all for letting them in the country though not about the peace agreement)
 Have him incapacitated and perhaps secretly imprisoned like with Anora until he came around
C) Called a Landsmeet or some other political move to take Cailan off the throne

If Loghain really thought Ostagar couldn't be won but Cailan wouldn't listen then he'd be forced come up with a plan anyway. Just because it might be the best plan that he could come up with and might even be the best plan possible with the restrictions Cailan placed on him doesn't mean he had to think it could work. Under the circumstances, it may not be right or noble but it's certainly understandable why he felt the need to have a backup plan for if things really went as bad as he thought and he wasn't going to charge. That said, he didn't see how bad they were or how bad he thought they were with the delayed lighting of the beacon until the actual battle when he decided to make his move.

A better, though still not perfect, analogy might be a woman who is going to go tell her abusive husband that she's leaving him. She brings a handgun along in case he tries something. That he takes a knife and comes at her once she's delivered the news and she shoots him in self-defense doesn't mean she was always planning on shooting him just because she brought the gun. It was just a contingency plan.

[Khavos]

Sarah1281 wrote...
I'm not sure that's a fair analogy. Loghain was planning making Cailan less of a threat, yes, but not necessarily by killing him. He took Cailan's allies out first which, if he were just going to kill him, seems unnecessary. It seems like what he was planning was to:
A)  Isolate him from his strongest supporters and then browbeat him into seeing Loghain's POV about the Orlesians (he knew Cailan was all for letting them in the country though not about the peace agreement)
 Have him incapacitated and perhaps secretly imprisoned like with Anora until he came around
C) Called a Landsmeet or some other political move to take Cailan off the throne

If Loghain really thought Ostagar couldn't be won but Cailan wouldn't listen then he'd be forced come up with a plan anyway. Just because it might be the best plan that he could come up with and might even be the best plan possible with the restrictions Cailan placed on him doesn't mean he had to think it could work. Under the circumstances, it may not be right or noble but it's certainly understandable why he felt the need to have a backup plan for if things really went as bad as he thought and he wasn't going to charge. That said, he didn't see how bad they were or how bad he thought they were with the delayed lighting of the beacon until the actual battle when he decided to make his move.

A better, though still not perfect, analogy might be a woman who is going to go tell her abusive husband that she's leaving him. She brings a handgun along in case he tries something. That he takes a knife and comes at her once she's delivered the news and she shoots him in self-defense doesn't mean she was always planning on shooting him just because she brought the gun. It was just a contingency plan.

What's missing in your analogy is a plan to get away with it all, which Loghain's had, as well as a lack of an immediate threat.  Cailan wasn't holding a metaphorical knife to Loghain.  Loghain THINKING he was isn't the same as it being so.  So if your woman also enlisted a friend to claim that they had been together the whole night if she ended up shooting her unarmed husband, that'd be a fair analogy.  It'd also be premeditated murder when it went before the courts.  

Again, given what Gaider has said, it is impossible to deny that Loghain came up with a plan to let Cailan die at Ostagar.  When he finally chose to go through with the plan he put in place is irrelevant.

[LobselVith8]

Regarding Loghain and Ostagar...

David Gaider wrote...

I haven't read this entire thread, so forgive me for offering some input on something with incomplete knowledge, but my impression is that there is a question about Loghain's intentions prior to Ostagar? If so, I can shed some light on what my thoughts regarding it are. You can take them for what it's worth -- if there's no evidence of something in the game it's debateable whether that can be taken as truth, after all.

In my mind, Loghain did not go to Ostagar expecting to walk away from the battle. It was clear, however, that he and Cailan were already having profound disagreements -- mainly centering on Cailan's overtures to Orlais. Loghain was obviously moving to confront Cailan in some way, undercutting his access to allies and so forth. But did Loghain plan on killing Cailan? No, I don't think that. I think he was doing what Loghain does, and trying to ensure that when that moment of confrontation with Cailan came the battle was already won.

That said, he had been fighting the darkspawn for some time in the south with Cailan there, and had already seen what Cailan was capable of. I think he made preparations prior to that last battle for the possibility that he would have to walk away. He once made a promise to Maric that he would never allow one man to be more important than the Kingdom -- and in his eyes Cailan was recklessly endangering both himself and his kingdom. Whether that error in judgement condemns him right there is up to you.

There is also the matter of his association with Arl Howe, someone Loghain evidences great distaste for -- but politics makes for strange bedfellows, as they say. In my mind, Loghain always thought that Howe was an ally completely under his control and was probably never able to admit even to himself how much Howe was able to manipulate him. Howe acted on a great number of things without Loghain's involvement or approval, but by then the two were already in bed together -- Loghain was committed, as it were, and after Ostagar doubly so. For all his faults, Loghain is not a man to waver once a decision is made -- good or bad. The only reason he gives up, in the end, is because he sees that there is someone else beside himself who can save Ferelden, someone who hasn't made the mistakes he has. The burden does not rest entirely on his shoulders -- which, yes, is how he feels.

Hope that makes sense, although I understand the topic of conversation here has gone in a lot of different directions.

[Sarah1281]

Khavos wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
I'm not sure that's a fair analogy. Loghain was planning making Cailan less of a threat, yes, but not necessarily by killing him. He took Cailan's allies out first which, if he were just going to kill him, seems unnecessary. It seems like what he was planning was to:
A)  Isolate him from his strongest supporters and then browbeat him into seeing Loghain's POV about the Orlesians (he knew Cailan was all for letting them in the country though not about the peace agreement)
 Have him incapacitated and perhaps secretly imprisoned like with Anora until he came around
C) Called a Landsmeet or some other political move to take Cailan off the throne

If Loghain really thought Ostagar couldn't be won but Cailan wouldn't listen then he'd be forced come up with a plan anyway. Just because it might be the best plan that he could come up with and might even be the best plan possible with the restrictions Cailan placed on him doesn't mean he had to think it could work. Under the circumstances, it may not be right or noble but it's certainly understandable why he felt the need to have a backup plan for if things really went as bad as he thought and he wasn't going to charge. That said, he didn't see how bad they were or how bad he thought they were with the delayed lighting of the beacon until the actual battle when he decided to make his move.

A better, though still not perfect, analogy might be a woman who is going to go tell her abusive husband that she's leaving him. She brings a handgun along in case he tries something. That he takes a knife and comes at her once she's delivered the news and she shoots him in self-defense doesn't mean she was always planning on shooting him just because she brought the gun. It was just a contingency plan.

What's missing in your analogy is a plan to get away with it all, which Loghain's had, as well as a lack of an immediate threat.  Cailan wasn't holding a metaphorical knife to Loghain.  Loghain THINKING he was isn't the same as it being so.  So if your woman also enlisted a friend to claim that they had been together the whole night if she ended up shooting her unarmed husband, that'd be a fair analogy.  It'd also be premeditated murder when it went before the courts.  

Again, given what Gaider has said, it is impossible to deny that Loghain came up with a plan to let Cailan die at Ostagar.  When he finally chose to go through with the plan he put in place is irrelevant.

But he had the whole 'not light beacon if necessary' plan before he had finished trying to get Cailan off the front lines. In fact, in Loghain's ideal scenario of Cailan staying back where it was safer then not lighting the beacon would be a necessity as that way Cailan couldn't call Logahin on not charging and blame the loss on him when Loghain used the loss and Cailan's 'thirst for glory' against him to neutralize him as a political opponent and maybe get him off the throne. Leaving everyone to die just to get Cailan's plan of letting Orlesians into the country to fail is still a horrible thing to do but, again, I think the fact it wasn't a sure-fire plan but a contingency means that if Loghain felt they could win then they would have still charged and he would have found another way to get Cailan out of his way. Considering he just wanted Cailan to back down on the issue of the Orlesians, though, proving that they could stand on their own without Orlesian help by winning at Ostagar might have been enough to change Cailan's mind on that matter anyway.

[Marcy3655]

It's what he did  that counts...   not if this or what about that...   that argument goes in circles forever....     after all, anything can be rationalized..

I've never read the books, but in looking at the characterizations in the game, well...   that guy is a very suspicious looking character...   not that judging a book by its cover is at all wise...    it's just that in a game there are only so many ways to portray a character and it seems to me that the game designers purposefully made him look that way...   and if you pay attention to details as I was trying to do it seems pretty obvious that the guy is quite the shady character...   not someone it would be wise to trust at all....    but that was just my take on him....    I just picked the game up about a month ago, and before that had never heard anything about it...     so I'm sure you guys know a lot more about the story than I do...    but sometimes just going by your gut feeling about something can point you in the right direction...     I gave him no mercy and killed him....    and it didn't seem like the story took a turn for the worse as a result...    but perhaps I haven't seen enough variations of it yet.....      

M

[Sarah1281]

Marcy3655 wrote...

It's what he did  that counts...   not if this or what about that...   that argument goes in circles forever....     after all, anything can be rationalized..

I've never read the books, but in looking at the characterizations in the game, well...   that guy is a very suspicious looking character...   not that judging a book by its cover is at all wise...    it's just that in a game there are only so many ways to portray a character and it seems to me that the game designers purposefully made him look that way...   and if you pay attention to details as I was trying to do it seems pretty obvious that the guy is quite the shady character...   not someone it would be wise to trust at all....    but that was just my take on him....    I just picked the game up about a month ago, and before that had never heard anything about it...     so I'm sure you guys know a lot more about the story than I do...    but sometimes just going by your gut feeling about something can point you in the right direction...     I gave him no mercy and killed him....    and it didn't seem like the story took a turn for the worse as a result...    but perhaps I haven't seen enough variations of it yet.....      

M

I disagree. If I believed that Loghain planned to leave everyone at Ostagar to die just so that he could kill one man because he had an unfounded paranoia about the well-intentioned Orlesian troops coming in and then went bad with power and that's what caused him to hunt you down and all of his abuses and even to endanger the life of his own daughter, I'd kill him with no hesitation. The facts are that Loghain left Ostagar and Cailan and the troops died because of it, he hunted you down, Orlais is his Berserk Button, and many terrible things happened since he assumed the regency. His motives can serve as a mitigating factor and what he tried to do and how he was so clearly in over his head is why I spare him.

[FiliusMartis]

Exactly where did Loghain want Cailan? With him? If so, then I find it difficult to believe that the absence of the signal would have prevented the charge. It's just a thought, but Cailan seems the type to eventually assume something went wrong with the signal (and rightly so) and order the charge anyway.

Considering the plan was Loghain's idea and his men, his personal choices I understand, were responsible for the signal and securing the tower, then a lot of blame would still have fallen on Loghain. He could have tried to paint Cailan as having a 'thirst for glory' in a negative light, but Cailan could flip it on Loghain using failure to secure the tower properly as evidence against him.

Edit: Ninja posters!  I will say don't judge a book by it's cover, but Loghain is clearly smirking when he gives that order. Not a good sign.

Modifié par FiliusMartis, 06 août 2010 - 11:27 .

[Marcy3655]

[/quote] I disagree. If I believed that Loghain planned to leave everyone at Ostagar to die just so that he could kill one man because he had an unfounded paranoia about the well-intentioned Orlesian troops coming in and then went bad with power and that's what caused him to hunt you down and all of his abuses and even to endanger the life of his own daughter, I'd kill him with no hesitation. The facts are that Loghain left Ostagar and Cailan and the troops died because of it, he hunted you down, Orlais is his Berserk Button, and many terrible things happened since he assumed the regency. His motives can serve as a mitigating factor and what he tried to do and how he was so clearly in over his head is why I spare him. [/quote]


In my experience the end doesn't necessarily justify the means...    in fact, it rarely if ever does....

M

[Sarah1281]

Marcy3655 wrote...

I disagree. If I believed that Loghain planned to leave everyone at Ostagar to die just so that he could kill one man because he had an unfounded paranoia about the well-intentioned Orlesian troops coming in and then went bad with power and that's what caused him to hunt you down and all of his abuses and even to endanger the life of his own daughter, I'd kill him with no hesitation. The facts are that Loghain left Ostagar and Cailan and the troops died because of it, he hunted you down, Orlais is his Berserk Button, and many terrible things happened since he assumed the regency. His motives can serve as a mitigating factor and what he tried to do and how he was so clearly in over his head is why I spare him.

In my experience the end doesn't necessarily justify the means...    in fact, it rarely if ever does....

M

Good to know. That's not what I said, however. I said his reasons for doing those things are the difference, for me, in him being a monster or just in way over his head and making bad decision after bad decision. If he were a monster, I would kill him. I see him as more of the latter and thus would rather take Riordan's advice.

[maxernst]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Marcy3655 wrote...

It's what he did  that counts...   not if this or what about that...   that argument goes in circles forever....     after all, anything can be rationalized..

I've never read the books, but in looking at the characterizations in the game, well...   that guy is a very suspicious looking character...   not that judging a book by its cover is at all wise...    it's just that in a game there are only so many ways to portray a character and it seems to me that the game designers purposefully made him look that way...   and if you pay attention to details as I was trying to do it seems pretty obvious that the guy is quite the shady character...   not someone it would be wise to trust at all....    but that was just my take on him....    I just picked the game up about a month ago, and before that had never heard anything about it...     so I'm sure you guys know a lot more about the story than I do...    but sometimes just going by your gut feeling about something can point you in the right direction...     I gave him no mercy and killed him....    and it didn't seem like the story took a turn for the worse as a result...    but perhaps I haven't seen enough variations of it yet.....      

M

I disagree. If I believed that Loghain planned to leave everyone at Ostagar to die just so that he could kill one man because he had an unfounded paranoia about the well-intentioned Orlesian troops coming in and then went bad with power and that's what caused him to hunt you down and all of his abuses and even to endanger the life of his own daughter, I'd kill him with no hesitation. The facts are that Loghain left Ostagar and Cailan and the troops died because of it, he hunted you down, Orlais is his Berserk Button, and many terrible things happened since he assumed the regency. His motives can serve as a mitigating factor and what he tried to do and how he was so clearly in over his head is why I spare him.

Oh, no, by leaving Cailan at Ostagar, he accomplishes a lot more than just killing Cailan.  He also likely kills off the bulk of Ferelden forces that would be loyal to someone else, and (hopefully) a possible claimant to the throne as well.  It's an absolutely brilliant move to position yourself for a civil war, if you're not worried about the Darkspawn (which he really seems not to be at any point).

[Marcy3655]

I don't know more about the backstory than what I see in game, so when that decision takes place I have only what I've seen to go on....   

I plan to play through again and when that scene takes place take the option to put him through the joining and see how things go from there....    have to tell Alistair to shut up....      lol         should be interesting though....  

M

[Sarah1281]

jln.francisco wrote...

A thought I just had.

Orlais is really no different in it's treatment of women than Fereldans. As we know from the City Elf Origin story, Fereldan soldiers are more then willing to rape and murder innocent Fereldan women. One of the women you meet even goes as far as to confide her fear that should she leave for Ostagar with her family there's no telling what the soldiers their might do to her.

There are abuses in Ferelden, of course, but the big difference is that in Orlais they don't just look the other way: Chevaliers raping non-nobles is legally sanctioned by the Orlesian government. They could just go the marketplace and start assaulting someone right in front of everybody and have it all be perfectly kosher on the legal front. In Ferelden, even Vaughan makes sure that no one knows anything about his activities besides rumors from people who came across the bodies he disposed of.

[Herr Uhl]

jln.francisco wrote...

A thought I just had.

Orlais is really no different in it's treatment of women than Fereldans. As we know from the City Elf Origin story, Fereldan soldiers are more then willing to rape and murder innocent Fereldan women. One of the women you meet even goes as far as to confide her fear that should she leave for Ostagar with her family there's no telling what the soldiers their might do to her.

That is elven women, and it is at least frowned upon. In Orlais that is perfectly legal with any woman.