12857 réponses à ce sujet

[phaonica]

Addai67 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

The first time I played through the Landsmeet I made the mistake of questioning his tactics at Ostagar. I never did that again. Surprising that I actually won, come to think of it. And how was Teagan able to get away with it when he wasn't even there?

I think Teagan is mostly questioning the fact that Loghain appears in Denerim so quickly, declaring himself as regent and just demanding that everyone accept it.  He's not the only character to do so, including Anora (the "Cailan's body was not even cold" line).

Teagan might also have gotten away with it because the situation is so recent and people don't know what to think. By the time the Landsmeet comes around, people have had more time to gather information and hear rumors. They are more likely to have an idea of who they want to believe, and what might be true, and who is or isn't a reliable source of information.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Re. Howe, you seriously consider him a "teryn", as a Cousland character no less??

It's irrelevent what I feel. Technically he is a Teyrn.

By usurpation, hence not legally.  But that goes back to the fact that Loghain's regency is illegal, too.

What I find ironic and lacking in the Landsmeet dialogue is an opportunity to laugh in Loghain's face and ask him when he planned to bring Howe before a seneschal.  Sometime after he had ceased to find him useful, no doubt.

Nope, as the Landsmeet did not declare Loghain's regency illegal yet. And while most nobles hated Howe, they did not deny his position.
And no one knows what Howe did at Highever and we have no witnesses except one (who is hardly unbiased), so the usurpation accusation is not strong enough. Actually, just as weak as the Ostagar accusation.    

And even if he isn't a Teyrn, we are still murdering the Arl of Amaranthine and the Arl of Denerim by default in his own home. Something I wish we could have avoided.

What is lacking is for a Cousland to ask Loghain about Highever and whether he was responsable or not.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 30 août 2010 - 07:29 .

[nos_astra]

Zjarcal wrote...
But if you win? Why would you have to duel Loghain to, hmm, win again?

Because Loghain doesn't accept the vote and is unwilling to back down. Either you have to fight him and his guards (big brawl) or you want to avoid further bloodshed.

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Nope, as the Landsmeet did not declare Loghain's regency as illegal yet.

Wasn't this the point of the Civil War? He was neither affirmed nor rejected?

[Monica21]

phaonica wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

The first time I played through the Landsmeet I made the mistake of questioning his tactics at Ostagar. I never did that again. Surprising that I actually won, come to think of it. And how was Teagan able to get away with it when he wasn't even there?

I think Teagan is mostly questioning the fact that Loghain appears in Denerim so quickly, declaring himself as regent and just demanding that everyone accept it.  He's not the only character to do so, including Anora (the "Cailan's body was not even cold" line).

Teagan might also have gotten away with it because the situation is so recent and people don't know what to think. By the time the Landsmeet comes around, people have had more time to gather information and hear rumors. They are more likely to have an idea of who they want to believe, and what might be true, and who is or isn't a reliable source of information.

Teagan says "your withdrawal was most fortuitous." He's clearly questioning the tactics and not his arrival. When you question Ostagar, you get shouted down by a bann for not knowing anything about miitary strategy. If anyone has the right to say "so, what was up with Ostagar" it's your PC, but somehow Teagan leads the banns away from Loghain without having any direct knowledge of the battle.

[Zjarcal]

klarabella wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
But if you win? Why would you have to duel Loghain to, hmm, win again?

Because Loghain doesn't accept the vote and is unwilling to back down. Either you have to fight him and his guards (big brawl) or you want to avoid further bloodshed.

But he doesn't force a fight. He's blabbering about how everyone in there is a traitor but at no point does he call for a fight the way Eamon did. It's the player who can choose to start a brawl in that scenario.

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Nope, as the Landsmeet did not declare Loghain's regency as illegal yet.

Wasn't this the point of the Civil War? He was neither affirmed nor rejected?

Sure. That means he isn't a usurper just yet. Until after the landsmeet.  

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Nope, as the Landsmeet did not declare Loghain's regency illegal yet. And while most nobles hated Howe, they did not deny his position.

That's backwards around.  The LM would have had to confirm Loghain's regency for it to be legal in the first place.  Otherwise Bubba Bannorn can just declare himself king and until an LM says no, it stands??

The position on Howe is clearly mixed, as evidenced by Alfstanna.

What is lacking is for a Cousland to ask Loghain about Highever and whether he was responsable or not.

That would have been nice, but did it matter?  He affirmed Howe after the fact, even though he had heard the story first from the only survivor via Cailan.  (Edit: survivors, including Duncan)

Modifié par Addai67, 30 août 2010 - 07:42 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
But if you win? Why would you have to duel Loghain to, hmm, win again?

Because Loghain doesn't accept the vote and is unwilling to back down. Either you have to fight him and his guards (big brawl) or you want to avoid further bloodshed.

But he doesn't force a fight. He's blabbering about how everyone in there is a traitor but at no point does he call for a fight the way Eamon did. It's the player who can choose to start a brawl in that scenario.

Yea, Eamon is a hypocrit for this.
Loghain calling for a duel is well within his rights and is done according to tradition. Eamon callign for a general onslaught is against the very traditions that he was crying about just earlier.

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

klarabella wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Nope, as the Landsmeet did not declare Loghain's regency as illegal yet.

Wasn't this the point of the Civil War? He was neither affirmed nor rejected?

Sure. That means he isn't a usurper just yet. Until after the landsmeet.  

Oh, you mean he's only an usurper if he's successfully usurping the throne, without being challenged?

[Addai]

Monica21 wrote...
Teagan says "your withdrawal was most fortuitous." He's clearly questioning the tactics and not his arrival. When you question Ostagar, you get shouted down by a bann for not knowing anything about miitary strategy. If anyone has the right to say "so, what was up with Ostagar" it's your PC, but somehow Teagan leads the banns away from Loghain without having any direct knowledge of the battle.

He does bring up Ostagar, but in context of Loghain demanding loyalty and troops ("the Bannorn will not simply bow...").  Like Ser Bryant and Anora, the speed with which Loghain moves from terrible military defeat to autocratic regent is what makes Teagan suspicious.

Although, showing up fresh and without a scratch when the king's armies were decimated is pretty suspcious in and of itself.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Nope, as the Landsmeet did not declare Loghain's regency illegal yet. And while most nobles hated Howe, they did not deny his position.

That's backwards around.  The LM would have had to confirm Loghain's regency for it to be legal in the first place.  Otherwise Bubba Bannorn can just declare himself king and until an LM says no, it stands??

The position on Howe is clearly mixed, as evidenced by Alfstanna.

Except that Loghain had the majority of nobles with him and the Queen consort (de jure, de facto she was not happy. Since there was no heir, she had the strongest bid to the throne before a Therein was revealed), until the Landsmeet.
 
Since the Landsmeet did not confirm nor reject his bid, then it's up in the air. It's not usurpation until the Landsmeet says it is. Legally speaking.  

And since Howe's position is mixed, then murdering him is going to offend those who do not object about his position. And even those who don't like him, as murdering a powerful man, who hapens to the the right hand man of the person you want to face before the Landsmeet just looks bad.

What is lacking is for a Cousland to ask Loghain about Highever and whether he was responsable or not.

That would have been nice, but did it matter?  He affirmed Howe after the fact, even though he had heard the story first from the only survivor via Cailan.

It would have matterred to me a lot. I understand why he affirmed Howe, and in the same situation I probably would have done the same.  

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

klarabella wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Nope, as the Landsmeet did not declare Loghain's regency as illegal yet.

Wasn't this the point of the Civil War? He was neither affirmed nor rejected?

Sure. That means he isn't a usurper just yet. Until after the landsmeet.  

Oh, you mean he's only an usurper if he's successfully usurping the throne, without being challenged?

No, that makes him the ruler by default. If he is not challenged.

He is a usuper once the Landsmeet declares that his bid for regency is rejected.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Except that Loghain had the majority of nobles with him and the Queen consort (de jure, de facto she was not happy. Since there was no heir, she had the strongest bid to the throne before a Therein was revealed), until the Landsmeet.

Clearly he did not have the majority or there would not have been a civil war.  And that, even with Redcliffe taken out of the fight.

The crux to my mind is the scene where we see Loghain in the gallery, speaking down to the nobles and telling them what is what.  We know from the codex that the king would stand in the assembly area and answer to the nobles in the gallery, not the other way around.  Loghain inverted the tradition and tried to use his army to intimidate people into simply accepting it.  It's a military coup.  Likewise Anora had no authority of her own to declare a regent yay or nay.

And since Howe's position is mixed, then murdering him is going to offend those who do not object about his position. And even those who don't like him, as murdering a powerful man, who hapens to the the right hand man of the person you want to face before the Landsmeet just looks bad.

No one likes Howe, that is apparent.  The only one who cares about him being dead is Loghain and that only as a strawman argument.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, that makes him the ruler by default. If he is not challenged.

He is a usuper once the Landsmeet declares that his bid for regency is rejected.

Well, yes, having poisoned Eamon and in view of the Couslands' lucky demise, there was no one strong enough to challenge him.  That doesn't make his regency legal.  It wasn't a "bid," BTW, he simply declared it and dared anyone to stop him.

And he was in such a hurry to call a Landsmeet to make his regency all legal and official... [/sarc]

[Aeowyn]

Loghain is probably the character that confuses me the most. Not sure if this has been pointed out earlier, but was he planning the events at Ostagar? Or what WAS he planning exactly? Because the Arl of Redcliffe was poisoned before Ostagar, so it makes me wonder if he planned to overthrow Cailan or.... did he just not like Eamon?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Clearly he did not have the majority or there would not have been a civil war.  And that, even with Redcliffe taken out of the fight.

Because a civil war can't happen between a minority and a majority? Happens all the time. 
There was no vote to confirm or reject his bid before the landsmeet we participate in. So him having the majority does not confirm his bid, otherwise having a second landsmeet is redundant.
 
Only the Bannorn sided against Loghain. All the Coatslands were with him. The capital was his. Two Arlings were with him (if not more, can't be bothered to check the map)). One Teyrnir was with him, and the other one under his ally's control. Not to mention the fact that he had the larger army.  

Furthermore, if the events of the alienage / bloodmage / templars are not revealed and if Anora stands with Loghain, he wins. Showing that the majority of lords are with him by default. Only if what he did was revealed, would they change sides.

No one likes Howe, that is apparent.  The only one who cares about him being dead is Loghain and that only as a strawman argument.

It's irrelevent, you are still murdering an important figure in his home, because he opposes you. It's illegal.  

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, that makes him the ruler by default. If he is not challenged.

He is a usuper once the Landsmeet declares that his bid for regency is rejected.

Well, yes, having poisoned Eamon and in view of the Couslands' lucky demise, there was no one strong enough to challenge him.  That doesn't make his regency legal.  It wasn't a "bid," BTW, he simply declared it and dared anyone to stop him.

And he was in such a hurry to call a Landsmeet to make his regency all legal and official... [/sarc]

The bannorn and Teagan challenged him.

And yes, he made the mistake of trying to impose himself. Nobles need to be persuaded.  
But that was his attitude ever sicne the Stolen Throne.

[phaonica]

Aeowyn wrote...

Loghain is probably the character that confuses me the most. Not sure if this has been pointed out earlier, but was he planning the events at Ostagar? Or what WAS he planning exactly? Because the Arl of Redcliffe was poisoned before Ostagar, so it makes me wonder if he planned to overthrow Cailan or.... did he just not like Eamon?

I don't think he was planning on overthrowing Cailan. I think he didn't trust Cailan to do something stupid with the armies, so he attempted to weaken Cailan's backing from the nobles before dealing with whatever issues Ostagar brought up.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And yes, he made the mistake of trying to impose himself. Nobles need to be persuaded.  
But that was his attitude ever sicne the Stolen Throne.

Hence why I said his regency is illegal.    His personality quirk doesn't count.

[CalJones]

I think he suspected that Cailan was planning on an alliance with Orlais (at least, that's what the documents in RtO seem to suggest) or at least, that Cailan was planning on bringing Orlesian forces into Fereldan (which we know is true). Given that Eamon was in Cailan's corner and would have backed him in a Landsmeet, Loghain wanted him out of the way. He didn't intend to kill him, just take him out of the picture for a while.

Certainly, the threat of an alliance, or another war with Orlais when the Orlesian troops decided not to go home, would have been enough to persuade Loghain that Cailan was not worth saving.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And yes, he made the mistake of trying to impose himself. Nobles need to be persuaded.  
But that was his attitude ever sicne the Stolen Throne.

Hence why I said his regency is illegal.    His personality quirk doesn't count.

Illegitimate might be a better word. It's only illegal after the Landsmeet rejects it. 

[phaonica]

CalJones wrote...

I think he suspected that Cailan was planning on an alliance with Orlais (at least, that's what the documents in RtO seem to suggest) or at least, that Cailan was planning on bringing Orlesian forces into Fereldan (which we know is true). Given that Eamon was in Cailan's corner and would have backed him in a Landsmeet, Loghain wanted him out of the way. He didn't intend to kill him, just take him out of the picture for a while.
Certainly, the threat of an alliance, or another war with Orlais when the Orlesian troops decided not to go home, would have been enough to persuade Loghain that Cailan was not worth saving.

Loghain probably knew that Cailan was talking to Orlais, but I doubt he knew that Cailan was going to allow Orlesian troops into Ferelden. Otherwise, it would have made much more sense to remove Cailan's influence some other way, rather than losing soldiers over it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

CalJones wrote...

I think he suspected that Cailan was planning on an alliance with Orlais (at least, that's what the documents in RtO seem to suggest) or at least, that Cailan was planning on bringing Orlesian forces into Fereldan (which we know is true). Given that Eamon was in Cailan's corner and would have backed him in a Landsmeet, Loghain wanted him out of the way. He didn't intend to kill him, just take him out of the picture for a while.
Certainly, the threat of an alliance, or another war with Orlais when the Orlesian troops decided not to go home, would have been enough to persuade Loghain that Cailan was not worth saving.

David Gaider confirmed that Loghain decided to reatreat the moment the beacon was lit. Before, he was actually planing on joining the battle (but he preprared for retreating if it came to that).
 
So it seems to me that his decision to retreat from Ostagar is done with tactical / strategic considerations in mind, (He thought the battle was lost and Orlesians are the greater threat) rather than him trying to get Cailan killed.

[Monica21]

Addai67 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
Teagan says "your withdrawal was most fortuitous." He's clearly questioning the tactics and not his arrival. When you question Ostagar, you get shouted down by a bann for not knowing anything about miitary strategy. If anyone has the right to say "so, what was up with Ostagar" it's your PC, but somehow Teagan leads the banns away from Loghain without having any direct knowledge of the battle.

He does bring up Ostagar, but in context of Loghain demanding loyalty and troops ("the Bannorn will not simply bow...").  Like Ser Bryant and Anora, the speed with which Loghain moves from terrible military defeat to autocratic regent is what makes Teagan suspicious.

Although, showing up fresh and without a scratch when the king's armies were decimated is pretty suspcious in and of itself.

The point is that while Loghain has a rather ham-fisted way of going about declaring himself (hence his desire for a "politician" like Howe), there is still the darkspawn to contend with. Teagan saying that the Bannorn will not bow is short-sighted when the priority is still the darkspawn. No one could argue that Loghain was fit to lead the troops. The throne could be sorted out once the blight was defeated.