12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

MariSkep wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Very true, but a similar change of heart happened to certain other characters in Dragon Age's lore (don't want to spoil it for anyone who doesn't know out there, but their name began with "K") and Loghain's position was that, despite that, that person needed to be executed for their crimes. By the time of the landsmeet Loghain had committed some very serious crimes, and he knew it.

Katriel was killed because she led the army into a trap at West Hill. "I'm sorry" doesn't cut it when you're the direct cause of over half the rebel forces.

So why is executing Loghain a bad thing again?

Katriel was an Orlesian bard/spy who duped Maric into falling in love with her and planned the massacre at West Hill long before it happened. Very unlike Ostagar.

[Obadiah]

Monica21 wrote...
...
Here I thought it was the darkspawn that were responsible for getting the King's army slaughtered, not Loghain. The darkspawn horde that kept growing in number with each battle and was larger than anyone expected.

You can try to compare Loghain's actions to Katriel's, but you'd be wrong. She was sent by Orlais to get close to Maric, lead the rebels to West Hill and kill him. Loghain is a general who had to retreat from Ostagar. I don't agree with his actions after Ostagar, but he's not a traitor.

Loghain is as responsible for the death of those soldiers as the darkspawn that attacked.

Enemy armies fight to the death, that is honorable and expected. Soliders can get executed for NOT doing that. If any of them had run off before that fight they would have been executed for dessertion. Loghain betrayed the King's army, and in their weakness they were slaughtered. They were as betrayed as the rebels in West Hill. Since Loghain was part of the planning, it could even be argued that he led them there to get them killed.

[Monica21]

Obadiah wrote...
Loghain is as responsible for the death of those soldiers as the darkspawn that attacked.

Enemy armies fight to the death, that is honorable and expected. Soliders can get executed for NOT doing that. If any of them had run off before that fight they would have been executed for dessertion. Loghain betrayed the King's army, and in their weakness they were slaughtered. They were as betrayed as the rebels in West Hill. Since Loghain was part of the planning, it could even be argued that he led them there to get them killed.

War is nothing like that. Leaders are sometimes forced to retreat. I think at Ostagar that Loghain actually saved half the forces from needless slaughter at darkspawn hands.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...
Enemy armies fight to the death, that is honorable and expected.

That is actually stupid and you must have a very romantic view of hsitory if you think all battles are like Thermopylae.
If you see no hope of victory, you retreat, regroup and replan your strategy. You don't stand there and die for nothing.  

Indeed, medieval and especially battles in the Antiquity often involved very minimal casualties and armies left the battle once their formations were broken.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 septembre 2010 - 10:38 .

[phaonica]

Obadiah wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Also, once they knew about Katriel's betrayal, Maric's side was probably going to demand her execution anyway. During the Blight, the Landsmeet does not demand Loghain death, even given all the 'evidence' they've been presented with.

Very true - I chalk that up to being stunned or just development time constraints. They don't exactly complain when you execute him either.

Because at that time, the Landsmeet really doesn't care about guilt and justice. They only care about who can end the civil war and stop the Blight. So you don't have to make a point to them by sparing him or executing Loghain. They'll follow you either way. It was thought that Maric would lose existing and potential support if Katriel wasn't executed. So there is a difference. Now if you do think you need to make that point, then so be it, but some don't and that decision is valid, too.

[KnightofPhoenix]

phaonica wrote...
 It was thought that Maric would lose existing and potential support if Katriel wasn't executed.

Imagine what the nobles would think of Maric if they found out that his lover was an Orlesian spy. Would they feel comfortable having a king that is too blind to notice a spy right under his nose? And one that ultimately succumbs to illusionary emotions and spares her?

Different situation indeed. This was not really a puinitive act in my mind, but rather to secure Maric on the throne.

[Sarah1281]

Obadiah wrote...

Loghain is as responsible for the death of those soldiers as the darkspawn that attacked.



Enemy armies fight to the death, that is honorable and expected. Soliders can get executed for NOT doing that. If any of them had run off before that fight they would have been executed for dessertion. Loghain betrayed the King's army, and in their weakness they were slaughtered. They were as betrayed as the rebels in West Hill. Since Loghain was part of the planning, it could even be argued that he led them there to get them killed.

Yeah, leaders retreating is hardly desertion. Loghain didn't sneak off in the middle of the night and leave his army leader-less and direction-less. He took them with him to avoid having them massacred and not being available later when they were needed (like when the freaking Archdemon finally appeared).



And I really don't see there being much 'honorable' about warfare. Standing and dying if it serves no purpose is stupid and it's the leader's job to try and prevent that. Loghain did just that.

[Persephone]

Monica21 wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Loghain is as responsible for the death of those soldiers as the darkspawn that attacked.

Enemy armies fight to the death, that is honorable and expected. Soliders can get executed for NOT doing that. If any of them had run off before that fight they would have been executed for dessertion. Loghain betrayed the King's army, and in their weakness they were slaughtered. They were as betrayed as the rebels in West Hill. Since Loghain was part of the planning, it could even be argued that he led them there to get them killed.

War is nothing like that. Leaders are sometimes forced to retreat. I think at Ostagar that Loghain actually saved half the forces from needless slaughter at darkspawn hands.

This. The whole "fight untill we're all dead" bit may be romantic and it may also be really hot in "300", but tactical retreats are as old as war itself.

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...
 It was thought that Maric would lose existing and potential support if Katriel wasn't executed.

Imagine what the nobles would think of Maric if they found out that his lover was an Orlesian spy. Would they feel comfortable having a king that is too blind to notice a spy right under his nose? And one that ultimately succumbs to illusionary emotions and spares her?

Different situation indeed. This was not really a puinitive act in my mind, but rather to secure Maric on the throne.

Exactly. They would have seen him as weak and naive and easily manipulated, and they would not have believed that he had what it took to protect them from the Orlesian backlash if they sided with him.

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Different situation indeed. This was not really a puinitive act in my mind, but rather to secure Maric on the throne.

Can you separate that?  Not punitive, but a move to secure his throne?

Is one bad, one okay?

I'm curious about your thnking here, NOT trying to provoke an argument.

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Enemy armies fight to the death, that is honorable and expected.

That is actually stupid and you must have a very romantic view of hsitory if you think all battles are like Thermopylae.
If you see no hope of victory, you retreat, regroup and replan your strategy. You don't stand there and die for nothing.  

Indeed, medieval and especially battles in the Antiquity often involved very minimal casualtiers and armies left the battle once their formations were broken.

Some enemy armies (as the darkspawn) do not take prisoners. It would be nice if it was otherwise, but that is not abnormal. If the enemy forces were too much, then Loghain should have ordered a retreat from the start, not agreed to the plan, waited for the King's army to fully engage, then retreat once the signal was given for him to attack. Let's not forget, he didn't give a signal for everyone to reatreat because the battle was lost. He just had HIS army pull out, and left everyone else there to die, to the astonishment of even his second in command who had the same view of the battlefield as he.

Modifié par Obadiah, 26 septembre 2010 - 10:39 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...
This. The whole "fight untill we're all dead" bit may be romantic and it may also be really hot in "300", but tactical retreats are as old as war itself.

This reminds me of the rather idiotic tactic that the Persians employed at the battle of Chains, against the Arab Muslims. They literally chained battle formations together to avoid them collapsing and retreating.

Of course this resulted in battle formations awkwardly trying to assume different positions and tripping one another over. The result was a bigger and better equipped army falling apart to a much smaller one in large part because of this.   

[Obadiah]

phaonica wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...
 It was thought that Maric would lose existing and potential support if Katriel wasn't executed.

Imagine what the nobles would think of Maric if they found out that his lover was an Orlesian spy. Would they feel comfortable having a king that is too blind to notice a spy right under his nose? And one that ultimately succumbs to illusionary emotions and spares her?

Different situation indeed. This was not really a puinitive act in my mind, but rather to secure Maric on the throne.

Exactly. They would have seen him as weak and naive and easily manipulated, and they would not have believed that he had what it took to protect them from the Orlesian backlash if they sided with him.

...and after what Loghain did to the Warden, they wouldn't see the same of him if he let Loghain live?

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
Can you separate that?  Not punitive, but a move to secure his throne?

Is one bad, one okay?

I'm curious about your thnking here, NOT trying to provoke an argument.

Of course I can.
One is smart and pragmatic. The other has little point.

[TJPags]

Can of worms, consider yourself opened.

While I prsonally agree with you, Obadiah, you're not going to win this argument.  Get ready for what Gaider said.

[phaonica]

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Different situation indeed. This was not really a puinitive act in my mind, but rather to secure Maric on the throne.

Can you separate that?  Not punitive, but a move to secure his throne?

Is one bad, one okay?

I'm curious about your thnking here, NOT trying to provoke an argument.

I can't speak for KoP, but for me it had nothing to do with punishing Katriel, it had to do with the *show* of punishing Katriel to the nobles.

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Can you separate that?  Not punitive, but a move to secure his throne?

Is one bad, one okay?

I'm curious about your thnking here, NOT trying to provoke an argument.

Of course I can.
One is smart and pragmatic. The other has little point.

Which is smart and pragmatic?  Killing someone to secure your throne?  Your right to rule? 

And the one which has little point, I assume, is killing someone as punishment?

[Sarah1281]

Some enemy armies (as the darkspawn) do not take prisoners. It would be nice if it was otherwise, but that is not abnormal. If the enemy forces were too much, then Loghain should have ordered a retreat from the start, not agreed to the plan, waited for the King's army to fully engage, then retreat once the signal was given for him to attack. Let's not forget, he didn't give a signal for everyone to reatreat because the battle was lost. He just had HIS army pull out, and left everyone else there to die, to the astonishment of even his second in command who had the same view of the battlefield as he.

Loghain was only in charge of his army and if Cailan said that they were going to fight and Cailan is the king then how was Loghain supposed to tell him no and just leave?

...and after what Loghain did to the Warden, they wouldn't see the same of him if he let Loghain live?

Oh, those are two completely different situations! The Warden doesn't think that Loghain is on their side for months while he secretly conspires to get the Warden's forces killed and the Warden doesn't take him as a lover and talk about marrying him.

[TJPags]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Different situation indeed. This was not really a puinitive act in my mind, but rather to secure Maric on the throne.

Can you separate that?  Not punitive, but a move to secure his throne?

Is one bad, one okay?

I'm curious about your thnking here, NOT trying to provoke an argument.

I can't speak for KoP, but for me it had nothing to do with punishing Katriel, it had to do with the *show* of punishing Katriel to the nobles.

Okay, but is it okay to kill someone just to make others think better of you?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...
Some enemy armies (as the darkspawn) do not take prisoners.

Which is precisely why you avoid a "death!" only situation.

Obadiah wrote...
If the enemy forces were too much, then Loghain should have ordered a retreat from the start, not agreed to the plan, waited for the King's army to fully engage, then retreat once the signal was given for him to attack.

A- Cailan wasn't relenting (and he should have been eliminated before).
B- Loghain only firmly believed the battle was lost *during* the battle. He wasn't happy about it before, but Cailan was arm twisting him into it. 
C- How can he signal the others to retreat? If both armies can signal one another, there is no point to the beacon, now is there.
D- Cauthrien was worried about the king and not about how the battle would transpire. Hence why she is second in command and Loghain is the experienced general here.

[Obadiah]

phaonica wrote...

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Different situation indeed. This was not really a puinitive act in my mind, but rather to secure Maric on the throne.

Can you separate that?  Not punitive, but a move to secure his throne?

Is one bad, one okay?

I'm curious about your thnking here, NOT trying to provoke an argument.

I can't speak for KoP, but for me it had nothing to do with punishing Katriel, it had to do with the *show* of punishing Katriel to the nobles.

I thought it had to do with being able to dispense justice, even to someone you love. The betrayal at the end of the book was more as a show for the nobles.

[Monica21]

Obadiah wrote...
Some enemy armies (as the darkspawn) do not take prisoners. It would be nice if it was otherwise, but that is not abnormal. If the enemy forces were too much, then Loghain should have ordered a retreat from the start, not agreed to the plan, waited for the King's army to fully engage, then retreat once the signal was given for him to attack. Let's not forget, he didn't give a signal for everyone to reatreat because the battle was lost. He just had HIS army pull out, and left everyone else there to die, to the astonishment of even his second in command who had the same view of the battlefield as he.

1. The size of the enemy forces wasn't known until they showed up.

2. Loghain can't order a retreat until he sees how the battle is going. The force could be big, but weak, in which case a flanking attack can work. In this case it was larger, complete with ogres and siege engines.

3. He was not with the rest of the army in the valley. He was in cover, waiting for the signal. He couldn't give the signal for everyone to retreat. From what you hear at Lothering though, not everyone needed a signal. You hear about small groups of soldiers and individuals who survived and are heading north.

4. His second asked about the king, she did not question the retreat itself.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
Which is smart and pragmatic?  Killing someone to secure your throne?  Your right to rule? 

And the one which has little point, I assume, is killing someone as punishment?

Yes.
It's only useful as to show  that you are punishing someone. But other than the show of force, it has little point.

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Some enemy armies (as the darkspawn) do not take prisoners.

Which is precisely why you avoid a "death!" only situation.

Obadiah wrote...
If the enemy forces were too much, then Loghain should have ordered a retreat from the start, not agreed to the plan, waited for the King's army to fully engage, then retreat once the signal was given for him to attack.

A- Cailan wasn't relenting (and he should have been eliminated before).
B- Loghain only firmly believed the battle was lost *during* the battle. He wasn't happy about it before, but Cailan was arm twisting him into it. 
C- How can he signal the others to retreat? If both armies can signal one another, there is no point to the beacon, now is there.
D- Cauthrien was worried about the king and not about how the battle would transpire. Hence why she is second in command and Loghain is the experienced general here.

You don't think they had a pre-arranged signal for retreat? Oh come on...

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...
You don't think they had a pre-arranged signal for retreat? Oh come on...

If they had one, why didn't they have a pre-arranged signal to attack which didn't involve the beacon?

Of course they might have if that Chantry **** didn't open her mouth. But as it is, they had none.