12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

Monica21 wrote...

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.

By the same token, so is not permitting Orlesian Wardens and their support troops to help fight against the Blight.  That is unacceptable to Loghain, but having a tyrant in Denerim is unacceptable to the bannorn.

Don't want to get into modern politics, but exploiting an emergency to overturn legal frameworks and strongarm opponents is exactly what a politician would do.

[Monica21]

Addai67 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

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.

By the same token, so is not permitting Orlesian Wardens and their support troops to help fight against the Blight.  That is unacceptable to Loghain, but having a tyrant in Denerim is unacceptable to the bannorn.

Don't want to get into modern politics, but exploiting an emergency to overturn legal frameworks and strongarm opponents is exactly what a politician would do.

And permitting Orlesian troops into Ferelden is a good idea when the King refuses to let the most powerful arling fight at Ostagar? I'm not saying the Ferelden troops should be exhausted, I'm saying that Loghain has good reason to presume that the Chevaliers won't simply leave once the blight is over.

Just because it's political doesn't mean it's good politics. He's clearly not a politician and he knows it.

[phaonica]

Monica21 wrote...
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.

On the one hand, I think the bannorn was being shortsighted because the throne could be sorted out later, however on the other hand I can understand to an extent because "temporary policy" can easily become permanent, and if Loghain *were* to drive back the darkspawn, it could potentially cement his influence, and those who continue to oppose him would have no power to legally bring him down at that point.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yes, the bannorn are kinda having the same concern as Loghain. Loghain fears that the Orlesians will not leave. The Bannorn is fearing that Loghain will not leave his position after this is delt with. Both are valid concerns, though I personally prefer a domestic tyrant than a foreign one.

But yea, I don't think Loghain played this well, politically speaking. He's no Bhelen (as in a guy capable of removing an assembly that stood for millenia so easily).

[Monica21]

phaonica wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
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.

On the one hand, I think the bannorn was being shortsighted because the throne could be sorted out later, however on the other hand I can understand to an extent because "temporary policy" can easily become permanent, and if Loghain *were* to drive back the darkspawn, it could potentially cement his influence, and those who continue to oppose him would have no power to legally bring him down at that point.

I see the point, but at the same time, what happens when there is no heir and the country is on the brink of war? Is there time to sit around for days bickering about it when there's entirely too much to do? I guess I'm simply saying that I understand why Loghain did what he did better than I understand why Teagan did what he did. Especially looking at it from a meta-gaming perspective and knowing that Loghain had no desire to be king.

[Giggles_Manically]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yes, the bannorn are kinda having the same concern as Loghain. Loghain fears that the Orlesians will not leave. The Bannorn is fearing that Loghain will not leave his position after this is delt with. Both are valid concerns, though I personally prefer a domestic tyrant than a foreign one.
But yea, I don't think Loghain played this well, politically speaking. He's no Bhelen (as in a guy capable of removing an assembly that stood for millenia so easily).

But then again who in DA can compare to the Dwarven Messiah really?

[CalJones]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

Yes...we don't disagree. As I said, not worth saving, rather than worth killing. The distinction is subtle but it's there.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Monica21 wrote...
I see the point, but at the same time, what happens when there is no heir and the country is on the brink of war? Is there time to sit around for days bickering about it when there's entirely too much to do? I guess I'm simply saying that I understand why Loghain did what he did better than I understand why Teagan did what he did. Especially looking at it from a meta-gaming perspective and knowing that Loghain had no desire to be king.

I concur. At least Loghain had an army and a plan (getting mages and dwarves to help). What were the bannorn and Teagan (the idiot who could have been the arl of redcliff and saved us a lot of precious time) planning? Nothing really.  But that's politics. It forces us to be patient with idiots and sadly Loghain does not have that kind patience.

Kind of like the same thing with the Amaranthine conspirators. Do they really think they can protect Amaranthine if they kill the Warden?

[Monica21]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
I see the point, but at the same time, what happens when there is no heir and the country is on the brink of war? Is there time to sit around for days bickering about it when there's entirely too much to do? I guess I'm simply saying that I understand why Loghain did what he did better than I understand why Teagan did what he did. Especially looking at it from a meta-gaming perspective and knowing that Loghain had no desire to be king.

I concur. At least Loghain had an army and a plan (getting mages and dwarves to help). What were the bannorn and Teagan (the idiot who could have been the arl of redcliff and saved us a lot of precious time) planning? Nothing really.  But that's politics. It forces us to be patient with idiots and sadly Loghain does not have that kind patience.

Kind of like the same thing with the Amaranthine conspirators. Do they really think they can protect Amaranthine if they kill the Warden?

Ha! I swear, the more I play this game, the more I think the only Guerrin I like is Rowan.

[CalJones]

What's it Ser Bryant says? Something like only fools bicker over a cottage while it burns down around them.

[CalJones]

Good, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Teagan is a jackass. Saying as much seems to be heresy on these forums, given that he has almost as many female fans as Alistair.

Still, he does have excellent jazz hands.

[MortalEngines]

Monica21 wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
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.

On the one hand, I think the bannorn was being shortsighted because the throne could be sorted out later, however on the other hand I can understand to an extent because "temporary policy" can easily become permanent, and if Loghain *were* to drive back the darkspawn, it could potentially cement his influence, and those who continue to oppose him would have no power to legally bring him down at that point.

I see the point, but at the same time, what happens when there is no heir and the country is on the brink of war? Is there time to sit around for days bickering about it when there's entirely too much to do? I guess I'm simply saying that I understand why Loghain did what he did better than I understand why Teagan did what he did. Especially looking at it from a meta-gaming perspective and knowing that Loghain had no desire to be king.

I've been quietly observing this thread but I felt at this point I should jump in. Teagan had every right to do what he did, in questioning Loghain's position. Firstly do not forget that this is so soon after Calian had been killed, which could very well of being Loghain's fault completely, not only is Teagan wondering if Loghain purposely killed Calian but how he, as regent would be able to defeat the blight. With the Grey Warden's apparently criminals according to Loghain, how can Fereldan possibly think to defeat the blight? They know nothing about the Archdemon and the general behaviour of Darkspawn, and since the closest Wardens are the Orlaisians that Loghain refuses to allow in, Fereldan cannot stand against the Darkspawn. Hence the only way to defeat the blight is to remove Loghain from power, as he is the one that is stopping Fereldan from summoning the forces to do so.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Monica21 wrote...
Ha! I swear, the more I play this game, the more I think the only Guerrin I like is Rowan.

Yea, I love Rowan. Like a lot.

Makes me ponder at what would have happened had she been alive during the events of Origins.

[KnightofPhoenix]

MortalEngines wrote...
not only is Teagan wondering if Loghain purposely killed Calian but how he, as regent would be able to defeat the blight. With the Grey Warden's apparently criminals according to Loghain, how can Fereldan possibly think to defeat the blight?

He never voiced that concern. His only concern is that he doens't like being bossed around. Not one of them knows why the Wardens are necessary, cause it's a secret. Then again, Teagan also thought it a good idea to go myth hunting. 

But he never said anything about Wardens being necessary and that being his primary reason for opposing Loghain, so you are speculating. 

[phaonica]

Monica21 wrote...

phaonica wrote...
On the one hand, I think the bannorn was being shortsighted because the throne could be sorted out later, however on the other hand I can understand to an extent because "temporary policy" can easily become permanent, and if Loghain *were* to drive back the darkspawn, it could potentially cement his influence, and those who continue to oppose him would have no power to legally bring him down at that point.

I see the point, but at the same time, what happens when there is no heir and the country is on the brink of war? Is there time to sit around for days bickering about it when there's entirely too much to do? I guess I'm simply saying that I understand why Loghain did what he did better than I understand why Teagan did what he did. Especially looking at it from a meta-gaming perspective and knowing that Loghain had no desire to be king.

When there is no heir and the country is on the brink of war and that's all there is to the story, it seems straightforward, but in this case, the person who is demanding the throne is the very person who is being accused of murdering the last heir. Practicality may say "who cares? there's a war to fight!" but I can't blame people for feeling that replacing that leader with someone they trust is a high priority, too.

Still, personally, I believe I would choose having someone I don't like on the throne for a few years than to risk hostile foreign occupation, because the king won't be on the throne forever, and a foreign country has the potential to exist for thousands of years and more.

Modifié par phaonica, 30 août 2010 - 09:27 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

MortalEngines wrote...
not only is Teagan wondering if Loghain purposely killed Calian but how he, as regent would be able to defeat the blight. With the Grey Warden's apparently criminals according to Loghain, how can Fereldan possibly think to defeat the blight?

He never voiced that concern. His only concern is that he doens't like being bossed around. Not one of them knows why the Wardens are necessary, cause it's a secret. Then again, Teagan also thought it a good idea to go myth hunting. 

You're talking about the Urn?  Teagan says he thought sending the knights out was a bad idea.

And, uh, "not being bossed around"?  Ferelden is based on the same sort of cultural basis that informs English law and American law- the rights of freeholders.  Having your civil rights knocked over is not a small thing.  Granted that most Fereldan nobles knuckled under to the Orlesians, but the ones currently titled are mostly the ones who wouldn't bow to tyranny then and won't accept a domestic tyrant, either.  A domestic tyrant thinks he's entitled, for one thing.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
You're talking about the Urn?  Teagan says he thought sending the knights out was a bad idea.

And yet he sends us after it, because he doesn't want to replace his brother as arl of redcliff. 

[Giggles_Manically]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
You're talking about the Urn?  Teagan says he thought sending the knights out was a bad idea.

And yet he sends us after it, because he doesn't want to replace his brother as arl of redcliff. 

Well they cut it out since it was rumoured that in the pre version that you could not do Haven, and just have Teagan replace Eamon.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I concur. At least Loghain had an army and a plan (getting mages and dwarves to help). What were the bannorn and Teagan (the idiot who could have been the arl of redcliff and saved us a lot of precious time) planning? Nothing really.  But that's politics. It forces us to be patient with idiots and sadly Loghain does not have that kind patience.

Kind of like the same thing with the Amaranthine conspirators. Do they really think they can protect Amaranthine if they kill the Warden?

Outlawing the Grey Wardens is what you call a plan?  An astute leader is a student of history.  Loghain had studied only one chapter:  the Orlesian occupation.  If he could see anything past his own obsessions, he would have seen that no one had ever defeated a Blight without the mediation of Grey Wardens and several nations.  Outlawing the Wardens is like deciding to kill Delta Force and the Seals because you think they're foreign agents.  Have a happy Blight...

[Monica21]

phaonica wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

phaonica wrote...
On the one hand, I think the bannorn was being shortsighted because the throne could be sorted out later, however on the other hand I can understand to an extent because "temporary policy" can easily become permanent, and if Loghain *were* to drive back the darkspawn, it could potentially cement his influence, and those who continue to oppose him would have no power to legally bring him down at that point.

I see the point, but at the same time, what happens when there is no heir and the country is on the brink of war? Is there time to sit around for days bickering about it when there's entirely too much to do? I guess I'm simply saying that I understand why Loghain did what he did better than I understand why Teagan did what he did. Especially looking at it from a meta-gaming perspective and knowing that Loghain had no desire to be king.

When there is no heir and the country is on the brink of war and that's all there is to the story, it seems straightforward, but in this case, the person who is demanding the throne is the very person who is being accused of murdering the last heir. Practicality may say "who cares? there's a war to fight!" but I can't blame people for feeling that replacing that leader with someone they trust is a high priority, too.

Still, personally, I believe I would choose having someone I don't like on the throne for a few years than to risk hostile foreign occupation, because the king won't be on the throne forever, and a foreign country has the potential to exist for thousands of years and more.

I was wondering if there were some precedent in Ferelden history. Poor wording. And I understand what you're saying, but how many people really did think Loghain murdered Cailan? A fortuitous withdrawal is not murder, sometimes it's just smart. The nobles never really warmed to Loghain anyway, so was it more a question of trust or just not wanting to see Loghain commanding Ferelden, if even for a short time?

[Addai]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
You're talking about the Urn?  Teagan says he thought sending the knights out was a bad idea.

And yet he sends us after it, because he doesn't want to replace his brother as arl of redcliff. 

Well they cut it out since it was rumoured that in the pre version that you could not do Haven, and just have Teagan replace Eamon.

I would have preferred having the option, though there should be consequences in the Landsmeet.  Eamon obviously had sway that Teagan did not.

[Aeowyn]

And even if they would have accepted Loghain as Regent. How soon would it be before the Blight took over the lands? Let's say that ALL Grey Wardens in Ferelden died, including Alistair and the PC. Sure they could've fought back the darkspawn but they would always come back and probably take more and more land. Considering Loghain's hatred for Orlais he would not allow the Orlesian Grey Wardens to come help, and would probably not step down until Ferelden nearly lay in ruins.

I doubt that he would ask for the Grey Wardens help even if the Archdemon showed itself. Yes he might be a tactical genius and a hero but in my eyes his arrogance and stubborness would be the end of Ferelden in this scenario.

[Giggles_Manically]

Addai67 wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
You're talking about the Urn?  Teagan says he thought sending the knights out was a bad idea.

And yet he sends us after it, because he doesn't want to replace his brother as arl of redcliff. 

Well they cut it out since it was rumoured that in the pre version that you could not do Haven, and just have Teagan replace Eamon.

I would have preferred having the option, though there should be consequences in the Landsmeet.  Eamon obviously had sway that Teagan did not.

Yah since Eamon is almost as famous as Loghain or Maric.
All Teagan has is a smexy voice really.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I concur. At least Loghain had an army and a plan (getting mages and dwarves to help). What were the bannorn and Teagan (the idiot who could have been the arl of redcliff and saved us a lot of precious time) planning? Nothing really.  But that's politics. It forces us to be patient with idiots and sadly Loghain does not have that kind patience.

Kind of like the same thing with the Amaranthine conspirators. Do they really think they can protect Amaranthine if they kill the Warden?

Outlawing the Grey Wardens is what you call a plan?  An astute leader is a student of history.  Loghain had studied only one chapter:  the Orlesian occupation.  If he could see anything past his own obsessions, he would have seen that no one had ever defeated a Blight without the mediation of Grey Wardens and several nations.  Outlawing the Wardens is like deciding to kill Delta Force and the Seals because you think they're foreign agents.  Have a happy Blight...

You mean the same Wardens that haven't done anything for 400 years?
An astute leader also deals with facts in front of them and not only stories. 
What facts do we know about the Wardens? Nothing. Yes, they were instrumental in defeating preivious blights, but it's not clear they were necessary. Much of the fighting was done by Orlais and Tevinter. WE know nothing about them being tainted, thus necessary. 

Also, it was not even clear this was a Blight, even Cailan doubted. Only the WArdens know for usre, which brings us back to square one. How do we know that the Wardens are necessary and only they know when a blight comes.

History tells us nothing about why the Wardens are necessary or even if they are necessary, or if they can feel a blight before time. What it does say is that the Wardens were instrumental in fighting the blight. That's it. The rest is covered with myths and legends of the kind people like Cailan and Wynne believe in, and it's not something astute leaders would take without a large grain of salt.   

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
You're talking about the Urn?  Teagan says he thought sending the knights out was a bad idea.

And yet he sends us after it, because he doesn't want to replace his brother as arl of redcliff. 

Well they cut it out since it was rumoured that in the pre version that you could not do Haven, and just have Teagan replace Eamon.

I would have preferred having the option, though there should be consequences in the Landsmeet.  Eamon obviously had sway that Teagan did not.

Yah since Eamon is almost as famous as Loghain or Maric.
All Teagan has is a smexy voice really.

He was useless.
It all rested on the Warden and what argumnents he / she brings up.
Eamon did nothing except call for the Landsmeet (which Teagan could do just as well) and push Alistair's bid to the throne.