1092 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarah1281]

Khavos wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
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.

I have to admit, I love the fact that you're defending a guy because his plan that inevitably would've led to the needless death of a lot of people, the king of Ferelden included, was only a contingency.  

If I had a plan to rob a bank and take hostages on the way out, in your world, I'm not outright guilty of planning to murder them because I'd only murder them on a contingency basis - if my plan went wrong, if the police tried to stop me, if something else forced my hand.  If there was evidence that I had a plan for killing them, even if it was only a contingency plan, I get moved from second degree crime-of-passion type murder to first degree premeditated murder. 

I honestly don't know why this is such a difficult concept to understand.  Loghain planned to abandon the army and the king at Ostagar, contingency or not.  When he chose to act on that plan is completely irrelevent.  He chose to act on it.  He could have not chosen to act on it. 

It's not difficult to understand and I'm not defending his actions. I get the impression from you that you think just the fact he planned it is enough to damn him. In your bank scenario, it's more like you have a plan to rob a bank and take hostages on your way out and even if you don't do it you're still damned because you even planned it out. I don't think Loghain's contingency plan is something he should be blamed for. That he did it is something he can be judged for but that I, again, feel was necessary to save his part of the army. Having one of what I'm sure were several possible scenarios being quitting the field does not, to me, translate to his plotting to murder them all which it seems to for you.

It's not a matter of me whitewashing everything he's done. It's just a matter of a disagreement about whether forming a plan you haven't implemented is something to be condemned for and whether doing something you knew you might have to earlier is worse than just saying 'you know, the beacon's taking forever, I bet those Orlesian Wardens are trying to get me killed and the battle's lost. Let's leave.' You keep trivializing what i'm saying and acting like I'm trying to insist Loghain can do no wrong - which I've never done - and it's really annoying so if you could quit it, that would be great.

[Sarah1281]

Khavos wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
He was trying to have a permanent alliance before hearing of the Blight, however.

So what?  The Germans and the Japanese committed horrible atrocities during World War II, including those committed against Allied military personnel.  We did some craptastic stuff to the Vietnamese, and they to us.  We're not still bitter enemies with any of them.  The political landscape, the political leadership, etc. have changed.  Such is the case with Orlais. 

Okay, now you're taking what I'm saying completely out of context. I was responding to someone saying that Cailan was reaching out to Orlais simply because he was taking the Blight that seriously. Loghain clearly did not know about this proposed alliance if his outraged reaction is any indication. Cailan could still be taking the Blight seriously even with the alliance but the Blight was not what caused him to start reaching out.

I am not saying Cailan deserved to die for this, I am not saying that Loghain knew any of this, I am not saying Cailan was wrong to reach out to Orlais or should hold grudges forever. I was merely correcting someone on the timeline of Cailan reaching out to Orlais. Can you please stop doing this? 

[Bahlgan]

What of Empress Celene anyway? I thought she too wished to put the past behind them.

I get the impression from you that you think just the fact he planned it is enough to damn him.

Loghain didn't just plan the event; he followed through to the letter. THAT is what made him damned.

Modifié par Bahlgan, 07 août 2010 - 08:54 .

[Sarah1281]

Bahlgan wrote...

What of Empress Celene anyway? I thought she too wished to put the past behind them.

It is what she told Cailan in her letters but whether that's true or not is anyone's guess as all we have from her are two letters and they'd say the same thing whether she was being sincere or wanted to reconquer them, plus we don't know the nature of their proposed alliance.

[Bahlgan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Bahlgan wrote...

What of Empress Celene anyway? I thought she too wished to put the past behind them.

It is what she told Cailan in her letters but whether that's true or not is anyone's guess as all we have from her are two letters and they'd say the same thing whether she was being sincere or wanted to reconquer them, plus we don't know the nature of their proposed alliance.

Expansion maybe? Eh but my bet is on the Qunari and their plan to reconquer Ferelden. Sorry, Orlais, you will just have to get your ass in line and wait your turn!!

[CalJones]

I don't see Eamon as a good guy, or a bad one; I see him more as a stuffy traditionalist in the Harrowmont mould. Like Harrowmont he is somewhat weak, and whilst he may have good intentions, he lacks the stones to see his own plans through. He was good natured enough to give Alistair a home, but not strong enough to stand up to his wife when she stomped her pretty little foot and insisted that he be sent to the Chantry. Likewise, he wants to push Alistair onto the throne but should you decide to go with Anora instead, he will back down quite meekly.

What I find distasteful is Eamon's attempt to put Alistair on the throne during a time of crisis. There are so many reasons why this is a bad thing. Firstly, he wants to depose Anora - whatever you think of her personality, she is described as a popular and respected queen who has been running the country for the past five years with little help from Cailan. Removing a tried and tested monarch for an unknown quantity is ridiculous, especially given that Alistair is a) totally unprepared to run a country at all, let alone in a time of war, a reluctant candidate, c) one of only two surviving Fereldan wardens and thus needed to end the Blight and by that token d) not guaranteed to survive.

It's not clear whether Eamon is doing this out of a misguided sense of tradition (after all, he is not aware of the warden fertility issues which would hamper Alistair's ability to carry on the Theirin bloodline even if he were king), blatant snobbery at Anora's more humble roots, or (as Loghain puts it) petty ambition - or even a combination of the three - but his timing is awful.

Did he deserve to be poisoned? Not for having an opinion, no, but if he was supporting Cailan in his plan to ally with Orlais, then removing him would have been expedient. In fact, it would have been smarter to take him out of the picture altogether, but apparently Loghain is not quite dastardly enough to go that far. Still, were I Anora, I'd have had him strung up for treason, especially in the light of his Ostagar letter.

One of my chief frustrations with DA:O is that we're forced to waste time searching for Andraste's ashes when there are more pressing concerns to attend to (as Sten rightly points out). Teagan could have provided the knights and even called the Landsmeet if necessary - he seemed to have no problem arguing with Loghain during the first post-Ostagar cutscene. But the game is what it is and I'll just have to continue to gnash my teeth every time I go through that "but thou must!" conversation with Teagan about finding the ashes. Bah.

[Khavos]

Sarah1281 wrote...
 Okay, now you're taking what I'm saying completely out of context. I was responding to someone saying that Cailan was reaching out to Orlais simply because he was taking the Blight that seriously. Loghain clearly did not know about this proposed alliance if his outraged reaction is any indication. Cailan could still be taking the Blight seriously even with the alliance but the Blight was not what caused him to start reaching out.

I am not saying Cailan deserved to die for this, I am not saying that Loghain knew any of this, I am not saying Cailan was wrong to reach out to Orlais or should hold grudges forever. I was merely correcting someone on the timeline of Cailan reaching out to Orlais. Can you please stop doing this? 

Sarah1281 wrote...

It's
very, very unlikely that Cailan is not well aware of the history of the
Orlesians in Ferelden. However, I see this as evidence that unlike
Loghain, Cailan does take the Blight seriously...so much so that he's
even willing to ally with an ancient enemy.

He was trying
to have a permanent alliance before hearing of the Blight, however.
There's also a difference between hearing 'oh, the Orlesians occupied
our land and were awful so we drove them out' and Loghain explaining how
the Orlesians made him watch as they raped his mother, killed his
father, abused his dog, had Cailan's grandmother killed, sought to
capture and then kill Maric...it might lend a more personal touch to it
and I don't really think Cailan heard that story from Loghain or Maric.
He's far too dismissive of Loghain's worries and cavalier about the
whole situation to really understand why Loghain won't let it go.

That whole paragraph was merely correcting the timeline and nothing else? 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

She was correcting you. The proposed alliance with Orlais had nothing to do with Cailan taking the Blight seriously or not, as it was already in the works.



Cailan didn't believe it was a real Blight, same as Loghain.

[Sarah1281]

Khavos wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
 Okay, now you're taking what I'm saying completely out of context. I was responding to someone saying that Cailan was reaching out to Orlais simply because he was taking the Blight that seriously. Loghain clearly did not know about this proposed alliance if his outraged reaction is any indication. Cailan could still be taking the Blight seriously even with the alliance but the Blight was not what caused him to start reaching out.

I am not saying Cailan deserved to die for this, I am not saying that Loghain knew any of this, I am not saying Cailan was wrong to reach out to Orlais or should hold grudges forever. I was merely correcting someone on the timeline of Cailan reaching out to Orlais. Can you please stop doing this? 

Sarah1281 wrote...

It's
very, very unlikely that Cailan is not well aware of the history of the
Orlesians in Ferelden. However, I see this as evidence that unlike
Loghain, Cailan does take the Blight seriously...so much so that he's
even willing to ally with an ancient enemy.

He was trying
to have a permanent alliance before hearing of the Blight, however.
There's also a difference between hearing 'oh, the Orlesians occupied
our land and were awful so we drove them out' and Loghain explaining how
the Orlesians made him watch as they raped his mother, killed his
father, abused his dog, had Cailan's grandmother killed, sought to
capture and then kill Maric...it might lend a more personal touch to it
and I don't really think Cailan heard that story from Loghain or Maric.
He's far too dismissive of Loghain's worries and cavalier about the
whole situation to really understand why Loghain won't let it go.

That whole paragraph was merely correcting the timeline and nothing else? 

No, the first sentence was doing that. The rest was trying to answer the same question the post I quoted was about whether or not Loghain told Cailan of his experiences in the rebellion which I found unlikely. I should probably mention that if that was what you were referring to then maybe that's the part of my post that you should have quoted.

@CalJones: I don't think it's as bad as all that. Anora, for all that she ruled the country, held the position of consort. Consorts throughout history have been set aside without anyone crying treason. As there had been no Landsmeet making Anora a ruling Queen instead of a consort and Loghain took the regency despite the fact she was also on the scene and more than capable of ruling, it's pretty clear that she had not been named a ruling Queen. Eamon wasn't really trying to depose her simply because she was not officially on the throne. While I concede that without Eamon's meddling Anora would have likely been a shoe-in, the introduction of a second candidate into an election (which was what the Landsmeet basically was until the loser decided they wouldn't accept that) does not make the person who talked that second person into entering treasonous no matter how ill-suited or incompetent the candidate may be or how self-serving the motives (not saying Alistair or Eamon are either, btw).

[Khavos]

Sarah1281 wrote...
It's not difficult to understand and I'm not defending his actions. I get the impression from you that you think just the fact he planned it is enough to damn him. In your bank scenario, it's more like you have a plan to rob a bank and take hostages on your way out and even if you don't do it you're still damned because you even planned it out.

No.  If I planned to do something, even allowing for the option of not doing it in my planning, and then went ahead and did it...I am guilty of having done something I planned to do.  Loghain is guilty of having done something he planned to do.  Loghain planned to do what he did.  It may have been one of several options, but the man himself is responsible for choosing among them, not to mention coming up with those options in the first place.

I don't think Loghain's contingency plan is something he should be blamed for. That he did it is something he can be judged for but that I, again, feel was necessary to save his part of the army. Having one of what I'm sure were several possible scenarios being quitting the field does not, to me, translate to his plotting to murder them all which it seems to for you.

Of course it does.  And, again, I really don't know how to make this any more clear.  If I don't like my boss, and come up with two plans to get rid of him - one of them being killing him, one of them being talking him into quitting - and then decide to go with killing him...I am, guess what, guilty of planning to kill my boss.  

It's not a matter of me whitewashing everything he's done. It's just a matter of a disagreement about whether forming a plan you haven't implemented is something to be condemned for and whether doing something you knew you might have to earlier is worse than just saying 'you know, the beacon's taking forever, I bet those Orlesian Wardens are trying to get me killed and the battle's lost. Let's leave.' You keep trivializing what i'm saying and acting like I'm trying to insist Loghain can do no wrong - which I've never done - and it's really annoying so if you could quit it, that would be great.

Where you're going wrong there is that Loghain DID implement the plan he formulated.  That's the part you seem to be missing for some reason, despite the fact that we've gone over it countless times.  Again: he planned to walk away from Ostagar and leave Cailan and his army to die.  He did indeed walk away from Ostagar and leave Cailan to die.  Whether he had eight hundred other plans or not is irrelevant, because we know which one he chose to go with.  

[Sarah1281]

I'm not denying that. I'm not even talking about him actually doing it at this point. You say that the mere fact that Loghain had a plan that involved Cailan dying is enough to condemn him even had he charged and gotten everyone killed saved Cailan. I don't feel having the plan is something to condemn him for. You can condemn him for carrying it out. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what you're saying.

[Khavos]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I'm not denying that. I'm not even talking about him actually doing it at this point. You say that the mere fact that Loghain had a plan that involved Cailan dying is enough to condemn him even had he charged and gotten everyone killed saved Cailan. I don't feel having the plan is something to condemn him for. You can condemn him for carrying it out. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what you're saying.

Where have I said that?  

[Sarah1281]

Khavos wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

I'm not denying that. I'm not even talking about him actually doing it at this point. You say that the mere fact that Loghain had a plan that involved Cailan dying is enough to condemn him even had he charged and gotten everyone killed saved Cailan. I don't feel having the plan is something to condemn him for. You can condemn him for carrying it out. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what you're saying.

Where have I said that?  

Your insistence that his having a plan to do this instantly made everything ten times more evil made it seem to me like that's what you were saying but I honestly don't remember if you actually said that.

[Bahlgan]

CalJones wrote...

I don't see Eamon as a good guy, or a bad one; I see him more as a stuffy traditionalist in the Harrowmont mould. Like Harrowmont he is somewhat weak, and whilst he may have good intentions, he lacks the stones to see his own plans through. He was good natured enough to give Alistair a home, but not strong enough to stand up to his wife when she stomped her pretty little foot and insisted that he be sent to the Chantry. Likewise, he wants to push Alistair onto the throne but should you decide to go with Anora instead, he will back down quite meekly.

Some people just don't have enough confidence to make the decisions on their own, mainly because those people do not feel they will be supported in making those decisions. Trust me, half the decisions I wish to make I know I cannot because I don't have enough manpower or firepower to do so. Besides, it really isn't up to Eamon to make that decision; the decision is up to the Warden because he is in command, according to Alistair.

Removing a tried and tested monarch for an unknown quantity is ridiculous, especially given that Alistair is a) totally unprepared to run a country at all, let alone in a time of war, a reluctant candidate, c) one of only two surviving Fereldan wardens and thus needed to end the Blight and by that token d) not guaranteed to survive.
It's not clear whether Eamon is doing this out of a misguided sense of tradition (after all, he is not aware of the warden fertility issues which would hamper Alistair's ability to carry on the Theirin bloodline even if he were king), blatant snobbery at Anora's more humble roots, or (as Loghain puts it) petty ambition - or even a combination of the three - but his timing is awful.

Removing? I joined Alistair and Anora in their marriage. I, for one, am not an ingrate so much as to waste her diplomacy in dealing with foreign nations and court matters. Alistair is new to becoming a ruler, and at a time of war makes the endeavors multiple times more stressful. But hey, life isn't fair, gotta do what you gotta do. Also his initiation as King makes good warm-up practice 

One of my chief frustrations with DA:O is that we're forced to waste time searching for Andraste's ashes when there are more pressing concerns to attend to (as Sten rightly points out). Teagan could have provided the knights and even called the Landsmeet if necessary - he seemed to have no problem arguing with Loghain during the first post-Ostagar cutscene.

Only Arl Eamon could have stood up against Loghain without losing the battle. Bann Teagan would not have held enough political clout to pull such a coup de grace on him. Finding Arl Eamon was key, assuming you wanted to save him. Now I have never known what is to be done if you choose not to save him, but saving him was none-the-less necessary to put yourself on equivalent standing force with Loghain.

I'm not denying that. I'm not even talking about him actually doing it at this point.

Honestly, you two have been going back and forth on this now. Why do you guys not just cut out that topic of discussion? It's one of those hot potato games with a never-popping balloon; nothing new is happening at this point.....

Modifié par Bahlgan, 07 août 2010 - 10:05 .

[CalJones]

I don't know about highly decorated. Despite his looks he is actually younger than Loghain and spent most of the Orlesian rebellion hiding in the Free Marches with Teagan (not something I'm holding against him, as he was only 15 at the time and young Fereldan nobles had to be protected from the Orlesians). I haven't read anything regarding his life post-occupation, beyond his reinstatement as Arl, so I'll admit I know nothing about any military achievements. He is well liked, but that is hardly surprising given that he seems the sort who backs down when the going gets tough and thus avoids stepping on any toes, wife included.
You are probably right about Howe, though. He's a tricky bastard.

jln.francisco wrote...

A few quick points,

4)Being sensitive to your wife's wishes doesn't make you a weak leader or politcian. It makes you whipped (nothing wrong with that). To my knowledge Eamon never let's his love for his family affect the policies he makes for Redcliffe or Fereldan. Personal matters remain personal matters. The same cannot be said for Anora who's judgement flies out the window when her father is involved.

That's not really a fair comparison. Would you say his dealings with Alistair was a personal matter? Agreeing with your wife's wishes to paint the drawing room salmon pink in exchange for a quiet life is one thing. Sending the king's child off to the Chantry is quite another, given that he has been entrusted with that child's guardianship. Unless Eamon actually thought that putting Alistair under the Chantry's thumb and getting him smacked up on lyrium was a good idea...which it might be, if you're the ruthless sort. Either way you cut it, Eamon's not looking so good. Either he's a weak man who would screw over the king's son to please his wife, or he's a cold bastard who would willingly turn Alistair into a Chantry automaton to ensure that he doesn't challenge Cailan for the throne.
As far as Anora goes, her judgement doesn't seem too bad to me. She has no reason to mistrust her father to begin with. Certainly she looks up to him, but so does the rest of Fereldan - he is a war hero, after all, and was instrumental in freeing Fereldan from Orlesian tyranny.
Once she realises that he has gone off the rails, she does put her personal feelings aside in order to remove him from power. As she admits, she isn't heartless, but Fereldan has to come first.  

jln.francisco wrote...

5)If Cailan was trying to ally with Orlais it would not be an act of treason to work with the king. He is after all, in charge of establishing such policies. That said, I don't think Eamon would have stood for such a thing. He went through a lot of what Loghain did and has every reason to be mistrustful of Orlais.

Aiding the king wasn't treasonous but you can argue that trying to remove the queen is (obviously, such arguments could only be upheld if  Anora was named as monarch at the Landsmeet...but she's a little more forgiving than I am).
Regarding Orlais, Eamon lost his father to them but, having spent much of the rebellion abroad, he didn't go through as much as Maric and Loghain, and certainly didn't have to endure anything as bad as being forced to watch while his mother was gang raped and murdered in front of him. Indeed, he seems to have forgiven them enough to take an Orlesian wife. Whilst he seems to have a dim view of the nobility (he describes them as "poncy little Orlesian lords") he certainly doesn't harbour the same distrust for them as Loghain. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view.

[FiliusMartis]

Once she realises that he has gone off the rails, she does put her personal feelings aside in order to remove him from power. As she admits, she isn't heartless, but Fereldan has to come first.

In all fairness, Anora only stands against Loghain if you go to her and explicitly agree to support her as queen. Otherwise she says your accusations against him are slanderous and such. In the end, she's behind whoever she thinks will give her the most power, even if it means a lying traitor.



I understand political necessity-- it's ugly. However, turning on someone who risked himself (or herself) to save you in order to stand with someone whom you know to have committed horrible crimes in order to further yourself is dodgy at best.

[CalJones]

Mm that might be the case - I've never not backed her in any of my games so I'll admit I've never seen her bad side. She's either ended up ruling with Alistair, my male Cousland or on her own.

Still, I can understand her desire to want to hold on to her power - she's been raised knowing that she would marry Cailan and would therefore become queen eventually, so she doesn't really know how to do anything else. And, as Alistair says, she's rather like her father in that they both believe they're the only ones who can run the country. I daresay she believes that holding on to her power is for the greater good. I can also imagine that she might even feel betrayed if you refuse to support her after she has given you the lead about the Alienage problems.

Ultimately, though, all politicians (nobles, in this case) are a bit on the dodgy side - they wouldn't be good politicians if they were completely straight.

[LobselVith8]

Sarah1281 wrote...

@CalJones: I don't think it's as bad as all that. Anora, for all that she ruled the country, held the position of consort. Consorts throughout history have been set aside without anyone crying treason. As there had been no Landsmeet making Anora a ruling Queen instead of a consort and Loghain took the regency despite the fact she was also on the scene and more than capable of ruling, it's pretty clear that she had not been named a ruling Queen. Eamon wasn't really trying to depose her simply because she was not officially on the throne. While I concede that without Eamon's meddling Anora would have likely been a shoe-in, the introduction of a second candidate into an election (which was what the Landsmeet basically was until the loser decided they wouldn't accept that) does not make the person who talked that second person into entering treasonous no matter how ill-suited or incompetent the candidate may be or how self-serving the motives (not saying Alistair or Eamon are either, btw).

No one refers to Anora as Queen-Consort, though. After Cailan's death, there was a Landsmeet, where Loghain proclaimed himself Queen Anora's Regent. Nobles seemed to have issue with Loghain, but with the Couslands presumed dead and the Therin bloodline apparently gone, why do you think Anora's standing would still be lessened? Even married to Alistair (which takes place more than a year after the first Landsmeet), no one refers to Anora as Queen-Consort (which seems to be only for Cousland Wardens). Loghain's ability to become Regent seems to be supported by Anora, especially when she speaks to Bann Teagan about her father "doing what is best." The ability to depose Anora with Alistair is that he's actually of the Therin bloodline.

CalJones wrote...

Mm that might be the case - I've never not backed her in any of my games so I'll admit I've never seen her bad side. She's either ended up ruling with Alistair, my male Cousland or on her own.
Still, I can understand her desire to want to hold on to her power - she's been raised knowing that she would marry Cailan and would therefore become queen eventually, so she doesn't really know how to do anything else. And, as Alistair says, she's rather like her father in that they both believe they're the only ones who can run the country. I daresay she believes that holding on to her power is for the greater good. I can also imagine that she might even feel betrayed if you refuse to support her after she has given you the lead about the Alienage problems.
Ultimately, though, all politicians (nobles, in this case) are a bit on the dodgy side - they wouldn't be good politicians if they were completely straight.

I think that's the appeal of an alternative, though. If you're playing as an elf, the past five years didn't demonstrate anything worthwhile for your people. A Bann basically abducted women right out of the alienage with armed guard and nobody cared. The alienage was purged then placed in lock down, and Anora seems oblivious to this when you speak to her about her not understanding why elves would be upset. Even Anora's betrayal at the castle can factor into wanting an alternative to her as ruler of Ferelden. I believe Anora's betrayal during the rescue was deconstructed best here:

Vim wrote...

Selej wrote...

I'm always surprised there's someone who brings up Anora betraying them when rescuing her.

I'm not.

She points out clearly no one must know as Howe's forces would kill her and her father's would imprison her if she were seen with the warden. If you're stupid enough to know that then openly oust her in front of her father's number two, you deserve to get 'stabbed in the back'. She even confronts you telling you why she did it even though you were supposed to guide her out of there without revealing her idenity.

There's two ways of looking at this situation...

1) You buy into the narrative that Anora wants everyone to believe.  She is the ruling Queen and you are obligated to serve her, even if that includes laying down your life for her (surrendering to the forces of someone trying to kill you) or slaughtering others unnecessarily (Ser Cauthrien & her men) because Anora is more important than everyone else.

2) You see Anora as the widow of the previous ruling king who has begged you to rescue her from her madman of a father. She might have administered the realm in her now dead husband's name, but the Landsmeet never proclaimed her the nation's ruler and you are under no obligation to obey her. Furthermore, as the walking engine of destruction she has begged to rescue her, she should trust your judgment and defer to you during the rescue.  You have no intention of handing her over, but neither are you stupid enough to surrender, nor do you wish to slaughter skilled veterans whose blades are needed to fight the oncoming horde of Darkspawn,  good people whose only fault is placing their loyalty in a man who no longer deserves it.  To convince them to stand down it is necessary to explain to Ser Cauthrien why you invaded Howe's estate, killed him, and left a trail of other bodies in your wake.  But Anora is so selfishly caught up in her desire to maximize her political advantage by both escaping and keeping her father from prematurely finding out that she begged the Warden to rescue her  (she knows very well that  neither Ser Cauthrien nor her father would harm a hair on her head despite the BS she's told you.) that she doesn't see the wisdom in dialogue to avoid needless deaths. When she lies, claiming you kidnapped her, she forces you to slaughter those very same skilled & capable veterans who are needed against the Darkspawn.  As far as my characters are concerned, the blood of Ser Cauthrien and her men are on Anora's hands.  Were it not for Anora's betrayal they would probably not have died.

That being said, I fought and recued her without giving her away and we seem to be living happily ever after in Awakening...well before the mysterious vanishing of my warden.

You can reveal your reason for invading Howe's estate to Ser Cauthrien and still live happily ever after with Anora in Awakening. She'll even apologize to you for her actions. While you might not see it, to Anora it's all just power politics.

As for siding with Loghain at the Landsmeet, considering that the armies the Warden raised aren't going to follow Loghain into battle because the treaties are with the Grey Wardens, I don't see what she thinks she's going to accomplish with her betrayal except remaining in power for the next few days until the darkspawn horde overrun Ferelden and kill her along with everyone else.

[maxernst]

LobselVith8 wrote...

No one refers to Anora as Queen-Consort, though. After Cailan's death, there was a Landsmeet, where Loghain proclaimed himself Queen Anora's Regent. Nobles seemed to have issue with Loghain, but with the Couslands presumed dead and the Therin bloodline apparently gone, why do you think Anora's standing would still be lessened? Even married to Alistair (which takes place more than a year after the first Landsmeet), no one refers to Anora as Queen-Consort (which seems to be only for Cousland Wardens). Loghain's ability to become Regent seems to be supported by Anora, especially when she speaks to Bann Teagan about her father "doing what is best." The ability to depose Anora with Alistair is that he's actually of the Therin bloodline.

CalJones wrote...

.

Vim wrote...

Selej wrote...

 

 

.

If Anora were really accepted as Queen, there would be no need for a Regent.  A Regent is someone who reigns in the place of a monarch, usually because the monarch is underage.  In a particularly messy succession situation, a regent might be an interim leader until the next monarch is decided.  The way I read the situation is that Loghain uses Anora's positon (and personal popularity and politcal strength) to justify his holding power until the succession is sorted out. I can't see any real legal justification for Loghain taking the position; he wasn't chosen regent by Cailan in the event of his death (the usual way in which regents are chosen), nor is he successful in getting the Bann's to accept him as regent.

It's always seemed to me that what Loghain should have done (if he really had the best interest of Ferelden at heart) is say, look, Cailan died without an heir.  We have a crisis on our hands right now, so why not figure out the true successor to Cailan after this crisis is over and have Anora be regent in the meantime.  I think this would have been more palatable to the Bann, particularly if he didn't undermine his own credibility with this nonsense about the Wardens betraying Cailan that hardly anybody believes.  He stays on as general (which is what he's actually good at), Anora handles adiministrative things (which is what she's good at).  Some people will whine about her not having royal blood, but that doesn't matter for a regent.  It's temporary.

So why doesn't he do this?  My opinion in a nutshell is this.  He knows Anora is pure pragmatist and, faced with the decision of whether to let the Orlesians & wardens in or allow Darkspawn to overrun half of Ferelden, she's going to let the Orlesians in.  So Loghain needs to seize power for himself.

As to whether Anora is happy with this arrangement?  I don't think she is at all; it's forced on her because Loghain has the loyalty of the army.  I've always suspected that the reason she goes to Howe is that she's trying to find an ally to put her back in a position of real power, instead of this figurehead role she has under Loghain.  When Howe doesn't cooperate, she turns to the PC for help.

Modifié par maxernst, 07 août 2010 - 05:23 .

[LobselVith8]

maxernst wrote...



If Anora were really accepted as Queen, there would be no need for a Regent. A Regent is someone who reigns in the place of a monarch, usually because the monarch is underage. In a particularly messy succession situation, a regent might be an interim leader until the next monarch is decided. The way I read the situation is that Loghain uses Anora's positon (and personal popularity and politcal strength) to justify his holding power until the succession is sorted out. I can't see any real legal justification for Loghain taking the position; he wasn't chosen regent by Cailan in the event of his death (the usual way in which regents are chosen), nor is he successful in getting the Bann's to accept him as regent.



It's always seemed to me that what Loghain should have done (if he really had the best interest of Ferelden at heart) is say, look, Cailan died without an heir. We have a crisis on our hands right now, so why not figure out the true successor to Cailan after this crisis is over and have Anora be regent in the meantime. I think this would have been more palatable to the Bann, particularly if he didn't undermine his own credibility with this nonsense about the Wardens betraying Cailan that hardly anybody believes. He stays on as general (which is what he's actually good at), Anora handles adiministrative things (which is what she's good at). Some people will whine about her not having royal blood, but that doesn't matter for a regent. It's temporary.



So why doesn't he do this? My opinion in a nutshell is this. He knows Anora is pure pragmatist and, faced with the decision of whether to let the Orlesians & wardens in or allow Darkspawn to overrun half of Ferelden, she's going to let the Orlesians in. So Loghain needs to seize power for himself.



As to whether Anora is happy with this arrangement? I don't think she is at all; it's forced on her because Loghain has the loyalty of the army. I've always suspected that the reason she goes to Howe is that she's trying to find an ally to put her back in a position of real power, instead of this figurehead role she has under Loghain. When Howe doesn't cooperate, she turns to the PC for help.

Considering a civil war started over Loghain's actions, I'd say you're not alone in thinking there was no need for him to declare himself Regent. Anora loves her father (considering she won't marry Alistair or the Warden if either is directly responsible for killing him) and she seems to trust him at first (as she tells Bann Teegan). Loghain is a war hero, he uses the excuse of needing to rebuild the army, lost at Ostagar, he doesn't do it because no one acknowledges Queen Anora - no one even mentions Anora being unsuitable to rule during the first Landsmeet, no one references her as Queen-Consort (although it's explicitly said if you're a Cousland looking for a seat on the throne). It's a time of war against the darkspawn; Loghain assumes it's no true Blight, but it's the primary reason that he assumes the role, because he thinks only he can lead Ferelden out of this in a time of emergency.

[Sarah1281]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

@CalJones: I don't think it's as bad as all that. Anora, for all that she ruled the country, held the position of consort. Consorts throughout history have been set aside without anyone crying treason. As there had been no Landsmeet making Anora a ruling Queen instead of a consort and Loghain took the regency despite the fact she was also on the scene and more than capable of ruling, it's pretty clear that she had not been named a ruling Queen. Eamon wasn't really trying to depose her simply because she was not officially on the throne. While I concede that without Eamon's meddling Anora would have likely been a shoe-in, the introduction of a second candidate into an election (which was what the Landsmeet basically was until the loser decided they wouldn't accept that) does not make the person who talked that second person into entering treasonous no matter how ill-suited or incompetent the candidate may be or how self-serving the motives (not saying Alistair or Eamon are either, btw).

No one refers to Anora as Queen-Consort, though. After Cailan's death, there was a Landsmeet, where Loghain proclaimed himself Queen Anora's Regent. Nobles seemed to have issue with Loghain, but with the Couslands presumed dead and the Therin bloodline apparently gone, why do you think Anora's standing would still be lessened? Even married to Alistair (which takes place more than a year after the first Landsmeet), no one refers to Anora as Queen-Consort (which seems to be only for Cousland Wardens). Loghain's ability to become Regent seems to be supported by Anora, especially when she speaks to Bann Teagan about her father "doing what is best." The ability to depose Anora with Alistair is that he's actually of the Therin bloodline.

No one refers to the HNF as a consort except in the epilogue and Anora is the only one who calls the HNM a consort and that's only if you sound too power-hungry and 'I want to be King' and she's reminding you she'll be the one in charge. Making sure to keep calling everyone a consort is kind of unnecessary.

If Anora were the ruling Queen she wouldn't need your support to get the Landsmeet to make her Queen in her own right, which she outright tells you. I'm not sure if there was a Landsmeet called after Cailan's death or if Loghain just assembled all the nobles but if what Teagan says can be believed - and he said it right in front of Loghain and everyone else who didn't contradict him - then Loghain called them together, declared himself regent without any input from the nobility, and then demands everyone's allegiance which Teagan responds to with 'The bannorn will not bow to you simply because you demand it.'

There's no voting going on here. Loghain just says 'okay, you're ruling King is dead. Anora is the Queen - if only the consort - and so I'm going to become her regent and rule now.' They may not ever refer to Anora as a consort but they definitely act like she is and talk about her as though she is, as does Anora.

Edit: There's not a civil war because no one likes Loghain: it's because he forces him being regent on everyone else and essentially steals the throne. Anora is popular enough that had the Landsmeet been given an opportunity they very well might have chosen her to be the ruling Queen. They weren't and they didn't. Liking her doesn't make her automatically the ruling Queen.

Modifié par Sarah1281, 07 août 2010 - 06:14 .