12857 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

Monica21 wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Ah, well, having his daughter on the throne certainly is useful to him keeping some power, be it ruling the country or controlling the army.  In fact, he says virtually that - about Anora ruling the country and him commanding the army - in his first post-Ostagar cutscene.

And given the poetic license Loghain takes with the truth throughout the game, I think it's fair not to believe everything he says.

I don't think Loghain wants power for power's sake. I think he wants the throne for Anora because he believes she's the best person to take it, and from everything we hear in game she's been the one doing the actual ruling since she married Cailan. I think he wants command of the armies because he believes he's the only one who can protect Ferelden. That may be arrogance on his part, but I don't think it's power just to have power.

He very well may not want power for powers sake, but he does certainly take actions which keep Anora on the throne, and which prevent questioning of that.  She may well be best to rule the country - hell, I think I've always put her on the throne - but I kind of think there is some abuse there.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Ah, well, having his daughter on the throne certainly is useful to him keeping some power, be it ruling the country or controlling the army.  In fact, he says virtually that - about Anora ruling the country and him commanding the army - in his first post-Ostagar cutscene.

And given the poetic license Loghain takes with the truth throughout the game, I think it's fair not to believe everything he says.

Because he thinks only he can pull it off. It depends on whether you think he did all this for his own power or not. My understanding of his character is that he never wanted power for its own sake. The way I see him, it's Ferelden that mattered to him, not power. 

The truth? Nothing was clear in the game. All you had is interpretations of facts happening. 
And regardless of what you think of his perception of poitics, it's what he says about himself that I am referring to. You can of course not believe him, but I think he has much interest in lying to you, he's actually pretty straight foward

See, no, to me, it doesn't really depend on his motivations.

Ferelden has a Landsmeet to confirm a new ruler.  When Caillan died, there should have been one.  Now, Anora may have been the best ruler - I said that above, to Monica - and Loghain may have been the best general available (I'll concede that, for this argument).  But he doesn't get to unilaterally decide this.  That's not how Ferelden works.  When he acts to do just that, and acts to prevent anyone from questioning his actions (the killing of those whose "mouths can't be kept shut") that SCREAMS at me that something is wrong here.  I do see it as a power grab, motivations bedamned.

He SHOULD have allowed the nobles - who all seemed to be gathered in Denerim, at least in that cutscene (minus those murdered by Howe or under the effects of poison, of course) - to hear what happened, and decide what to do.  That's what was called for, under Ferelden law, as I understand it.  He didn't.  What is that, if not a power grab? (Even if motivated by love for your country)?

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
He SHOULD have allowed the nobles - who all seemed to be gathered in Denerim, at least in that cutscene (minus those murdered by Howe or under the effects of poison, of course) - to hear what happened, and decide what to do.  That's what was called for, under Ferelden law, as I understand it.  He didn't.  What is that, if not a power grab? (Even if motivated by love for your country)?

While I disagree that he should have told them, I agree that he should have handled it differently, yes. But he is a bad politician. (And let's not mention how even in democracies, governments don't tell Parliament / Senate / Congress / whatever what they do all the time).  

But remember this. In the Stolen Throne, there was a noble who was mocking Maric and left a secret meeting. What did Loghain do? Kill him. The rest were brought back in line. He thought he could do all this again.

And Ferelden law is far from being this ideal Rule of Law type system that you seem to think it is. At the end of the day, the one who wins a duel decides the fate of the country.

Of course you can think motivation is irrlevent. I would disagree. But that becomes a question of opinion.  

[KnightofPhoenix]

Also, sparing Loghain and making him a Warden is perfectly legal.

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Also, sparing Loghain and making him a Warden is perfectly legal.

Oh, I've never said that making him a Warden was illegal - I don't think I have, anyway.

But nevertheless - Ferelden has laws.  I don't think it's perfect or pure or anything else - don't think I've said that, either.  But, what Loghain did in TST (I still haven't read it, but whatever) was certainly NOT legal.  Thinking he could do it again was clearly not the right thing to do, both because it was illegal when he did it the first time, and also because it's not the way the government works.

The Landsmeet decides on the ruler - that's how it works.  Killing someone who is going to vote against you is murder.  Taking actions which prevent the Landsmeet from voting is illegal.

The dual does decide.  But the dual is either pure game mechanics or the result of someone not willing to abide by the vote.  If it's the latter, well, that person should never be allowed to have the dual AFTER losing the vote (which is why I think it's game mechanics - I know that the PC forces it if you lose the Landsmeet).  But those are separate issues.

I think it's clear that preventing the Landsmeet from having that vote in the first place is a power grab - whatever his motivations, I can't see what else to call it.

[Monica21]

TJPags wrote...
See, no, to me, it doesn't really depend on his motivations.

Ferelden has a Landsmeet to confirm a new ruler.  When Caillan died, there should have been one.  Now, Anora may have been the best ruler - I said that above, to Monica - and Loghain may have been the best general available (I'll concede that, for this argument).  But he doesn't get to unilaterally decide this.  That's not how Ferelden works.  When he acts to do just that, and acts to prevent anyone from questioning his actions (the killing of those whose "mouths can't be kept shut") that SCREAMS at me that something is wrong here.  I do see it as a power grab, motivations bedamned.

He SHOULD have allowed the nobles - who all seemed to be gathered in Denerim, at least in that cutscene (minus those murdered by Howe or under the effects of poison, of course) - to hear what happened, and decide what to do.  That's what was called for, under Ferelden law, as I understand it.  He didn't.  What is that, if not a power grab? (Even if motivated by love for your country)?

The problem with the early Landsmeet is that we're not even sure who's there and if it's a true Landsmeet. You see Teagan, but that's it. There's no mention of nobles being called to Denerim except for the Bann of Lothering, and that was only because Loghain needed his troops. He may have been sent somewhere else and not even ended up in Denerim. It might have simply been an emergency "whoever's in Denerim" meeting.

I don't see it as a power grab simply because I don't see him as a power hungry person. Bryce is dead, he doesn't trust Eamon, Teagan pipes up with his questions about Ostagar without having been there and Anora's the one who's been ruling. I'm not sure why Teagan didn't just say "let's have a vote now" instead of saying that the Bannorn wouldn't bow to Loghain. Teagan has that authority, if the power of the nobility and especially the banns is to be believed.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
I think it's clear that preventing the Landsmeet from having that vote in the first place is a power grab - whatever his motivations, I can't see what else to call it.

From a legal perspective, you could see it that way, sure.
However, notice how Eamon refers to Loghain as regent.
But regardless of that, I don't think Loghain's regency was either legal or illegal, as the landsmeet was not called (and we know that by default, aka you not telling them what he did,  Loghain wins). It's the Landsmeet that decides whether it is or isn't. So it's suspended in the air, until the Landsmeet happens.

I am not saying that what Loghain did was legal. But his claim for the regency is not illegal either.
Which is all irrelevent, at the end of the day the laws didn't matter. And I'd argue that in the case of rebellions, and ful scale war, they don't really matter in this context.

The reason why I mentioned Warden recruimtent as being legal is to say that even from a hardcore legalist perspective, sparing him is not illegal. So regardless of whether what Loghain did is legal or illegal (and for me, it matters little), recruiting him renders all that void and that's perfectly legal. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 septembre 2010 - 01:51 .

[TJPags]

Monica21 wrote...

TJPags wrote...
See, no, to me, it doesn't really depend on his motivations.

Ferelden has a Landsmeet to confirm a new ruler.  When Caillan died, there should have been one.  Now, Anora may have been the best ruler - I said that above, to Monica - and Loghain may have been the best general available (I'll concede that, for this argument).  But he doesn't get to unilaterally decide this.  That's not how Ferelden works.  When he acts to do just that, and acts to prevent anyone from questioning his actions (the killing of those whose "mouths can't be kept shut") that SCREAMS at me that something is wrong here.  I do see it as a power grab, motivations bedamned.

He SHOULD have allowed the nobles - who all seemed to be gathered in Denerim, at least in that cutscene (minus those murdered by Howe or under the effects of poison, of course) - to hear what happened, and decide what to do.  That's what was called for, under Ferelden law, as I understand it.  He didn't.  What is that, if not a power grab? (Even if motivated by love for your country)?

The problem with the early Landsmeet is that we're not even sure who's there and if it's a true Landsmeet. You see Teagan, but that's it. There's no mention of nobles being called to Denerim except for the Bann of Lothering, and that was only because Loghain needed his troops. He may have been sent somewhere else and not even ended up in Denerim. It might have simply been an emergency "whoever's in Denerim" meeting.

I don't see it as a power grab simply because I don't see him as a power hungry person. Bryce is dead, he doesn't trust Eamon, Teagan pipes up with his questions about Ostagar without having been there and Anora's the one who's been ruling. I'm not sure why Teagan didn't just say "let's have a vote now" instead of saying that the Bannorn wouldn't bow to Loghain. Teagan has that authority, if the power of the nobility and especially the banns is to be believed.

True, we don't know exactly who is there, but the room looks pretty full - from this I assume there might be a quorum.  I could be wrong.

But sure Teagan asks questions - everyone there is dead, or being silenced by Loghain, remember?  He has a right to ask those questions, surely?  Yet Loghain walks out.  That bothers me.

And yes, very good point about Teagan not calling for a vote then and there.  Perhaps I haven't allowed for the fact that someone needs to actually, formally CALL for a vote or a Landsmeet.  I don't think we know how that works, do we?  Could be a technicality in Loghain's favor there.

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I think it's clear that preventing the Landsmeet from having that vote in the first place is a power grab - whatever his motivations, I can't see what else to call it.

From a legal perspective, you could see it that way, sure.
However, notice how Eamon refers to Loghain as regent.
But regardless of that, I don't think Loghain's regency was either legal or illegal, as the landsmeet was not called (and we know that by default, aka you not telling them what he did,  Loghain wins). It's the Landsmeet that decides whether it is or isn't. So it's suspended in the air, until the Landsmeet happens.

I am not saying that what Loghain did was legal. But his claim for the regency is not illegal either.
Which is all irrelevent, at the end of the day the laws didn't matter. And I'd argue that in the case of rebellions, and ful scale war, they don't really matter in this context.

The reason why I mentioned Warden recruimtent as being legal is to say that even from a hardcore legalist perspective, sparing him is not illegal. So regardless of whether what Loghain did is legal or illegal (and for me, it matters little), recruiting him renders all that void and that's perfectly legal. 

Well, while I disagree about his regency being legal, I won't argue it again.

I do completely agree that if you spare him and make him a Warden, that's it - everything before is now void, and he has a clean slate.  I just can't do that.

[Giggles_Manically]

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I think it's clear that preventing the Landsmeet from having that vote in the first place is a power grab - whatever his motivations, I can't see what else to call it.

From a legal perspective, you could see it that way, sure.
However, notice how Eamon refers to Loghain as regent.
But regardless of that, I don't think Loghain's regency was either legal or illegal, as the landsmeet was not called (and we know that by default, aka you not telling them what he did,  Loghain wins). It's the Landsmeet that decides whether it is or isn't. So it's suspended in the air, until the Landsmeet happens.

I am not saying that what Loghain did was legal. But his claim for the regency is not illegal either.
Which is all irrelevent, at the end of the day the laws didn't matter. And I'd argue that in the case of rebellions, and ful scale war, they don't really matter in this context.

The reason why I mentioned Warden recruimtent as being legal is to say that even from a hardcore legalist perspective, sparing him is not illegal. So regardless of whether what Loghain did is legal or illegal (and for me, it matters little), recruiting him renders all that void and that's perfectly legal. 

Well, while I disagree about his regency being legal, I won't argue it again.

I do completely agree that if you spare him and make him a Warden, that's it - everything before is now void, and he has a clean slate.  I just can't do that.

No he dosent.
He might have a "legal" clean slate. However his name and legend are gone, people know him for what he is now, and all his power has been destroyed.
In your sense of justice his head is cleanly loped off.
In a Warden's sense he is either soul crushed, or doomed to die being torn into little bits by genlocks all alone in the deep roads.

Neither of them are really that much better.

[Monica21]

TJPags wrote...
True, we don't know exactly who is there, but the room looks pretty full - from this I assume there might be a quorum.  I could be wrong.

But sure Teagan asks questions - everyone there is dead, or being silenced by Loghain, remember?  He has a right to ask those questions, surely?  Yet Loghain walks out.  That bothers me.

And yes, very good point about Teagan not calling for a vote then and there.  Perhaps I haven't allowed for the fact that someone needs to actually, formally CALL for a vote or a Landsmeet.  I don't think we know how that works, do we?  Could be a technicality in Loghain's favor there.

I don't think Loghain had anything to do with Highever, but I don't remember what you think about it. I have to admit, that I can hardly blame Loghain for mistrusting Eamon because I don't trust him either. And Teagan certainly has a right to those questions, but the way he frames them puts doubt in the player's mind. Loghain's ham-fisted reaction does nothing but solidify the doubt. Terrible politician. Anora should have been the one speaking, really.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
Well, while I disagree about his regency being legal, I won't argue it again.

I do completely agree that if you spare him and make him a Warden, that's it - everything before is now void, and he has a clean slate.  I just can't do that.

I am not saying it's legal. I am saying it's not legal, and it's not illegal.

Well he loses his ranks, title and all his possessions.
He has a clean state, but it's dedicated to an Order and he's going to die soon anyways.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 septembre 2010 - 02:03 .

[TJPags]

Monica21 wrote...

TJPags wrote...
True, we don't know exactly who is there, but the room looks pretty full - from this I assume there might be a quorum.  I could be wrong.

But sure Teagan asks questions - everyone there is dead, or being silenced by Loghain, remember?  He has a right to ask those questions, surely?  Yet Loghain walks out.  That bothers me.

And yes, very good point about Teagan not calling for a vote then and there.  Perhaps I haven't allowed for the fact that someone needs to actually, formally CALL for a vote or a Landsmeet.  I don't think we know how that works, do we?  Could be a technicality in Loghain's favor there.

I don't think Loghain had anything to do with Highever, but I don't remember what you think about it. I have to admit, that I can hardly blame Loghain for mistrusting Eamon because I don't trust him either. And Teagan certainly has a right to those questions, but the way he frames them puts doubt in the player's mind. Loghain's ham-fisted reaction does nothing but solidify the doubt. Terrible politician. Anora should have been the one speaking, really.

Oh, as to Highever, I accept that Howe did that, but I believe Loghain knew about it in advance, and certainly after the fact, and therefore condoned it.  But I wasn't referring to Bryce there, I was talking about those survivors who were being hunted and killed by Loghain's people, who we were talking about earlier (a la that guy who gives you the RtO quest).  That's who I meant was dead and couldn't answer.

I don't like Eamon much, and I'm okay with Loghain not liking him - not okay with the poisoning, but again, that's not really who I meant here.

And exactly - Teagan's tone plants doubts in my mind - combined with the doubts I had from the retreat cutscene.  I also think he's not the only noble with those doubts.  And yes, Loghain doing the talking, not Anora, and then his walkout, do NOT cast him in a good light at all.  Certainly, from this point in my first playthrough, I was inclined not to like this guy.

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Well, while I disagree about his regency being legal, I won't argue it again.

I do completely agree that if you spare him and make him a Warden, that's it - everything before is now void, and he has a clean slate.  I just can't do that.

I am not saying it's legal. I am saying it's not legal, and it's not illegal.

Well he loses his ranks, title and all his possessions.
He has a clean state, but it's dedicated to an Order and he's going to die soon anyways.

So it's in limbo?    j/k - we've done this to death already.

And if I recall, he's been painted as not really caring about titles and ranks - didn't I read that he had to sort of be forced to accept the title he had?  He does get to keep some possessions - still got his armor, after all. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
So it's in limbo?    j/k - we've done this to death already.

And if I recall, he's been painted as not really caring about titles and ranks - didn't I read that he had to sort of be forced to accept the title he had?  He does get to keep some possessions - still got his armor, after all. 

Yes, it is in limbo. Unless a document (constitution or other) clearly showing Ferelden law can be used to prove  the legality of the act. What I see is that it's the Landsmeet that decides and since it was not called, it is in limbo yes.

This happens all the time actually when there is internal conflicts around the throne and when the nation is split in two. The winning party always ends up legalising it.
That's what I am trying to say. In civil wars especially, laws can no longer be used as a reference point, as by definition of a civil war the state collapsed and its laws don't matter.
If you want to assume legalism, you'll have to say that all the nobles who followed Loghain were illegal, which would be a stretch I am pretty sure there are honest nobles who followed him.

Well if you want to hurt him, then him joining the Wardens is painful irony, isn't?
But I wouldn't know. It was not my intention to puinish him. That was the least of my concern when we have the blight at hand.

[Monica21]

TJPags wrote...
Oh, as to Highever, I accept that Howe did that, but I believe Loghain knew about it in advance, and certainly after the fact, and therefore condoned it.  But I wasn't referring to Bryce there, I was talking about those survivors who were being hunted and killed by Loghain's people, who we were talking about earlier (a la that guy who gives you the RtO quest).  That's who I meant was dead and couldn't answer.

Ah, well, on Highever we'll have to agree to disagree. As to the other survivors, do you mean them appearing at the Landsmeet? I'm pretty sure that Elric wasn't properly titled, and even he says that Ostagar couldn't have been won. He would have been a voice in Loghain's favor.

I don't like Eamon much, and I'm okay with Loghain not liking him - not okay with the poisoning, but again, that's not really who I meant here.

Fair enough.

And exactly - Teagan's tone plants doubts in my mind - combined with the doubts I had from the retreat cutscene.  I also think he's not the only noble with those doubts.  And yes, Loghain doing the talking, not Anora, and then his walkout, do NOT cast him in a good light at all.  Certainly, from this point in my first playthrough, I was inclined not to like this guy.

Agreed.
 

[TJPags]

Monica21 wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Oh, as to Highever, I accept that Howe did that, but I believe Loghain knew about it in advance, and certainly after the fact, and therefore condoned it.  But I wasn't referring to Bryce there, I was talking about those survivors who were being hunted and killed by Loghain's people, who we were talking about earlier (a la that guy who gives you the RtO quest).  That's who I meant was dead and couldn't answer.

Ah, well, on Highever we'll have to agree to disagree. As to the other survivors, do you mean them appearing at the Landsmeet? I'm pretty sure that Elric wasn't properly titled, and even he says that Ostagar couldn't have been won. He would have been a voice in Loghain's favor.

Well, no, not appearing at the Landsmeet.  But when these people go back to their own Banns/Tieryns/Arls, whoever, they could tell them what happened.  Since they are being prevented from doing that, it seems logical that the nobles have questions.

And while he may have agreed the battle could not have been won - maybe everyone would have agreed on that - he also could have said that the Wardens weren't to blame.

Modifié par TJPags, 27 septembre 2010 - 02:28 .

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
A ruthless one that only cares about winning - yes, that would be a problem.

Would it?
I see human hsitory built by people liek that.

Not all of it. If it were no one would ever have allies.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Just because they ignore those feelings doesn't mean they didn't have that reaction. I'm pretty sure most people would have a probem with Loghain's actions.

And how is that relevent when they are willign to follow him regardless? It shows that their dedication to those principles is not as strong when their lives are put on the line.
Hence why at the end, they resort to Might makes Right and nothing else.

My contention is that Loghain's actions were wrong and evil. The conscience is indicative of that, but people ignore their conscience all the time.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
There is. If you look at the laws codified around the world, there is a certain consistency. At least: don't murder, don't lie. Even tyrants try to enforce those in addition to, "do what I say."

Purely for instrumental reasons to preserve order (and the Spartans loved to murder hellots as a right of passage).
But you'll find that the definition of murder varies, and what is considered self-defense varies. And not to mention honor killing and other types of killings.

Which is not really relevent, when you are at war, social conventions don't matter anymore. I recommend reading The History of the Peloponesian War by Thucydides. Talks about that.

I don't think social conventions are ever irrelevant, and they are indicative of right and wrong. If Loghain didn't have to torture those people (and apparently he didn't because according to you the Banns didn't care anyway) then he shouldn't have. It was just a pointless sick excercise that he shouldn't have engaged in or countenanced.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That's right. I'm giving my judgement based on the facts as I see them, and by my own ethical standards, which I think are largely shared by the characters of Ferelden. What else is anyone expected to judge Loghain's actions by? Without an ethical standard, it's just a bunch of actions by Loghain that ended in failure.

If you want to kill him because he failed. Go ahead.
I prefer a much more complex study of the character, based on motives, circumstances, how that person thinks...etc in order to judge an act.

I am not talkign about you judging him in-game. We are taking an out-game perspective here. I am not trying to tell you how to judge him in-game.

I can only judge him from my own perspective. I don't think I've disagreed with anyone here on what Loghain did or why he thinks he did what he did (I don't think it was power grab for personnal glory) - I just think his actions were evil, and he should have tried harder. I think he knew his actions were evil. He certainly doesn't look happy or proud of his betrayal at Ostagar at all. He does defend those actions, but it is with anger not pride. I interpretted that as stubborn, "I had a good reason" not "I was right." I wonder what he thinks any of those people he fought with to free Ferelden (Maric, Rowan, etc..) would think of his actions? It's too bad his only counsel was Howe.

Modifié par Obadiah, 27 septembre 2010 - 02:36 .

[RavenousBear]

I am not the first person to say this, but I am fascinated with this thread with all this juicy information on Loghain, Ferelden's government, Eamon, Anora, and everyone's favorite King:P.  While I am sort of on the fence on my opinions of Loghain and I disagree with some of his actions after Ostagar, he is indeed a much more interesting antagonist than any other from different games. He is better than the typical "bwhaha I 'm evil and I kill for the lulz" adversaries that are common these days. The decision at the Landsmeet is one of my hardest decisions in each of my playthroughs.

Anyways, just wanted to drop in and praise this thread before going back to spectating before I get dragged into the debate since I am a coward in debating.

[Persephone]

People use the word "evil" so freely....it's...well... Anyway. Was he wrong? Yes. Misled? Yes. Paranoid? Yes. Evil? I don't think so. At all.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...
Not all of it. If it were no one would ever have allies.

How so? Can't you have allies and be equally pragmatic about winning?
And many alliances were centralised around one power that kept them in line (Sparta / Athens / Rome before it became an Empire).

You think that pragmatists and Realists espouse going to war all the time? There are benefits to be had with having allies. Economic, strategic and otherwise.
And because you have enemies all the time, it make it beneficial to have allies.

My contention is that Loghain's actions were wrong and evil. The conscience is indicative of that, but people ignore their conscience all the time.

Purely subjective opinion, can't discuss that. Believe what you will.

I don't think social conventions are ever irrelevant, and they are indicative of right and wrong. If Loghain didn't have to torture those people (and apparently he didn't because according to you the Banns didn't care anyway) then he shouldn't have. It was just a pointless sick excercise that he shouldn't have engaged in or countenanced.

In war and chaos, they become irrelevent.
We see during natural disasters that many people end up stealing to survive. Does that make them evil? 

About Torture. A deterrent. If he can't deter his enemies by  proving his strength, he'd lose his position.
Torture was not invented for the lulz you know (though some did take pleasure in it, but I don't think that's Loghain). It has instrumental use. To put fear in the heart of your enemies. 
And torture is sometimes scarier than death.

You can argue that this is a wrong practise. But you would be saying so in a world that probably practises torture everywhere.

I can only judge him from my own perspective. I don't think I've disagreed with anyone here on what Loghain did or why he thinks he did what he did (I don't think it was power grab for personnal glory) - I just think his actions were evil, and he should have tried harder.

And you are entitled to your opinion.
But a discussion cannot be based on that or revolve around that as it's a waste of time. You believe what you will, I don't think anyone attacked you for your beliefs.

And I saw no indication that Loghain thought what he did was evil. He doesn't like doing them. That hardly makes him think they are evil. He thinks they were necessary.

[Giggles_Manically]

Wasent Howe the one torturing people?

Didnt Isolde also have Jowan tortured?



Loghain is not alone on that boat.

[RavenousBear]

Persephone wrote...

People use the word "evil" so freely....it's...well... Anyway. Was he wrong? Yes. Misled? Yes. Paranoid? Yes. Evil? I don't think so. At all.

I never thought he was "evil" from my first playthrough, I actually thought he lost his sanity. An antagonist like Darth Malak would be closer to "evil", who was just a brute with limited intellect.

This coming from someone who got the game and played without knowing that BSN or DAW existed or read a walkthrough.

Modifié par Caak7i, 27 septembre 2010 - 03:14 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Persephone wrote...

People use the word "evil" so freely....it's...well... Anyway. Was he wrong? Yes. Misled? Yes. Paranoid? Yes. Evil? I don't think so. At all.

Paranoid? No. Wrong? In a sense only that the Grey Wardens have importance. Misled? I agree here.

Evil? Seriously, calling someone who is a patriot above all evil is really dumb.

In my opinion the only stupid thing that Loghain did was to try and save Cailan.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 27 septembre 2010 - 03:12 .

[TJPags]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Persephone wrote...

People use the word "evil" so freely....it's...well... Anyway. Was he wrong? Yes. Misled? Yes. Paranoid? Yes. Evil? I don't think so. At all.

Paranoid? No. Wrong? In a sense only that the Grey Wardens have importance. Misled? I agree here.

Evil? Seriously, calling someone who is a patriot above all evil is really dumb.

In my opinion the only stupid thing that Loghain did was to try and save Cailan.

Patriots can be evil, and can certainly do evil things.