12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

Addai67 wrote...

Duncan says the Wardens take only the best fighters. He says it in almost all the origins.

And some are pickpockets and killers with nothing left to lose. Duncan's main concern seems to be with whether the person can be useful, and not with whether he builds a unit of Navy SEALS.

And if they are the best of the best, so what? The Wardens are a considerably smaller organization than the Ferelden forces. There are fighters within that force who are at least as good as the Wardens. Without knowing how a blight ends, you again have to wonder why the Wardens are necessary.

[phaonica]

Addai67 wrote...

Duncan says the Wardens take only the best fighters. He says it in almost all the origins.

They manage reasons to recruit that don't have anything to do with being good fighters. They didn't want Genevieve and she managed to get in despite being rejected by them repeatedly, and not because of merit, either.

Also, if Duncan really believes that this is a Blight, I don't see how he has time to go around looking for elite fighters. At that point, if you're a fighter of any skill at all and can survive the Joining, you're in!

[Addai]

So you just kill them, because? Okay. LOL



It's not Loghain's finest general moment, let's just say that.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

So you just kill them, because? Okay. LOL

It's not Loghain's finest general moment, let's just say that.

If you believe that they are consorting with foreign enemies in an attempted invasion (Wardens tried a coup d'etat in Ferelden before, some of them are in the imperial court, Orlais is the Wardens' greatest ally and financer thus has influence, Wardens help spread the Chantry created by Orlesian Emperor Drakon), then yes, you try to kill them.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 31 août 2010 - 05:57 .

[Addai]

All based on pure paranoia and no evidence whatsoever. Wardens tried a coup d'etat in Ferelden 400 years earlier with a tyrant king and that makes them a threat forever? What is your evidence in-game or otherwise for Orlesian financing and support of Fereldan Wardens? Why should them spreading the Chantry be a concern of Loghain's?

Whatever. If it makes sense to you, run with it.

Modifié par Addai67, 31 août 2010 - 06:04 .

[phaonica]

Addai67 wrote...

All based on pure paranoia and no evidence whatsoever. Wardens tried a coup d'etat in Ferelden 400 years earlier with a tyrant king and that makes them a threat forever? What is your evidence in-game or otherwise for Orlesian financing and support of Fereldan Wardens? Why should them spreading the Chantry be a concern of Loghain's?

Whatever. If it makes sense to you, run with it.

So now "history" is "paranoia and no evidence"? Why is it okay to connect the dots in one part of history, but not in another?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

All based on pure paranoia and no evidence whatsoever. Wardens tried a coup d'etat in Ferelden 400 years earlier with a tyrant king and that makes them a threat forever?

If they attempted a coup before, what's stopping them from doing it again?

Addai67 wrote...
What is your evidence in-game or otherwise for Orlesian financing and support of Fereldan Wardens?

Because other than the Anderfels, it was clear that Orlais had the most Wardens. Add the fact that Orlais is the most powerful nation around, that Wardens are active in Orlesian politics (the Orlesian wArden commander is a member of court) and that the Anderfels is so poor it couldnt' possibly generate enough income to support the wardens as an organisation, and it's evident that they need backing from the other nations, namely Orlais.

Addai67 wrote...
Why should them spreading the Chantry be a concern of Loghain's?

Because the Chantry is an Orlesian organisation created by an Orlesian Emperor (the empire and the chantry were created by this same man). Helping spread the Chantry = spreading Orlesian influence. If the Wardens did that in the past for Orlais, why wouldn't they do it now?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 31 août 2010 - 06:21 .

[MortalEngines]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

All based on pure paranoia and no evidence whatsoever. Wardens tried a coup d'etat in Ferelden 400 years earlier with a tyrant king and that makes them a threat forever?

If they attempted a coup before, what's stopping them from doing it again?

Addai67 wrote...
What is your evidence in-game or otherwise for Orlesian financing and support of Fereldan Wardens?

Because other than the Anderfels, it was clear that Orlais had the most Wardens. Add the fact that Orlais is the most powerful nation around, that Wardens are active in Orlesian politics (the Orlesian wArden commander is a member of court) and that the Anderfels is so poor it couldnt' possibly generate enough income to support the wardens as an organisation, and it's evident that they need backing from the other nations, namely Orlais.

Addai67 wrote...
Why should them spreading the Chantry be a concern of Loghain's?

Because the Chantry is an Orlesian organisation created by an Orlesian Emperor (the empire and the chantry were created by this same man). Helping spread the Chantry = spreading Orlesian influence. If the Wardens did that in the past for Orlais, why wouldn't they do it now?

You make several valid points, it's hard to find holes in your argument .

I do have question though, what does Orlais seek to gain from taking Fereldan back? There are many other weaker nations in Thedas (for instance, Anderfel) that it could gain land and power from, what is the point of starting another huge war when like you said, Orlais is one of the most powerful nations (though I believe the Tevinter Imperium can rival it) why would it need to start up ANOTHER war?.

I don't understand what the Wardens would gain either. There duty is to the blight, aiding Orlais take Fereldan would not help in further situations with the darkspawn. I think alot of stuff in-game is exaggerated by Loghain. 

Modifié par MortalEngines, 31 août 2010 - 08:57 .

[CalJones]

Of course it is. To Loghain, Orlais is like a red rag to a bull. It's very personal for him, which is why he is undone by it.

Still, his fears are not entirely groundless, given Orlais' history of conquest (not just in Fereldan but other nations as well). Orlais is a much larger country with a lot of influence and a history of aggression - it is natural for people to worry about it the same way people worried about the Soviet Union at the height of its power.

As far as Fereldan's desirability goes, it has plenty of coast, making it strategically advantageous, not to mention mineral wealth. The Anderfels, on the other hand, is a blasted wasteland which was ravaged by the Blight to the point that nothing could grow in large parts of it...not the sort of country anyone would really care to bother with.

Still, whether Orlais would want to start another war is a different matter. From the correspondance in RtO, it seems clear that Celene was more interested in gaining influence in Fereldan through more diplomatic means. If a marriage to Cailan was on the cards (this is speculation, mind you...Loghain takes the letters to mean that they were planning to marry but there's no firm proof that there would have been anything more than an alliance) then Orlais wouldn't even have had to conquer Fereldan to turn it into a vassal state once again.

As for the Wardens, they are supposedly politically neutral, though in the case of the Anderfels, and the coup against Arland before they were kicked out of Fereldan, this hasn't always been the case. Still, during Blights their main purpose is to eliminate the darkspawn. Loghain is really just going by what he knows - their history in Fereldan, and the fact they nearly got Maric killed. He has little reason to trust them. As we know from the game, this proves to be his downfall, but one cannot really blame him for his point of view, given his past.

[MortalEngines]

CalJones wrote...

Of course it is. To Loghain, Orlais is like a red rag to a bull. It's very personal for him, which is why he is undone by it.
Still, his fears are not entirely groundless, given Orlais' history of conquest (not just in Fereldan but other nations as well). Orlais is a much larger country with a lot of influence and a history of aggression - it is natural for people to worry about it the same way people worried about the Soviet Union at the height of its power.
As far as Fereldan's desirability goes, it has plenty of coast, making it strategically advantageous, not to mention mineral wealth. The Anderfels, on the other hand, is a blasted wasteland which was ravaged by the Blight to the point that nothing could grow in large parts of it...not the sort of country anyone would really care to bother with.
Still, whether Orlais would want to start another war is a different matter. From the correspondance in RtO, it seems clear that Celene was more interested in gaining influence in Fereldan through more diplomatic means. If a marriage to Cailan was on the cards (this is speculation, mind you...Loghain takes the letters to mean that they were planning to marry but there's no firm proof that there would have been anything more than an alliance) then Orlais wouldn't even have had to conquer Fereldan to turn it into a vassal state once again.
As for the Wardens, they are supposedly politically neutral, though in the case of the Anderfels, and the coup against Arland before they were kicked out of Fereldan, this hasn't always been the case. Still, during Blights their main purpose is to eliminate the darkspawn. Loghain is really just going by what he knows - their history in Fereldan, and the fact they nearly got Maric killed. He has little reason to trust them. As we know from the game, this proves to be his downfall, but one cannot really blame him for his point of view, given his past.

You must remember that the case with Arland was justified, the man was a tyrant and no doubt put alot of stress and repression on the Wardens, I don't blame them for pulling a coup. Not to mention it was like 400 years ago, those who caused the coup are long since dead.

Also, Loghain's actions of banishing the Wardens as criminals would push for another Warden coup rather than suppress it. If this was Loghain's plan of getting rid of the Warden threat it was very poorly thought out as he simply pushed the Wardens to do irrational actions.The whole fact that they are willing to help with the Blight should be reason enough to trust them, if they wished to overtake Fereldan, why on earth would they put most of their forces on the front lines?

If I was in Loghain's shoes I would of done things much differently, even with the past he had. His focus should of being on the blight, if he is such a fan of the past, he should know that in past ONLY wardens could end the blight and that every blight in Fereldan has been devastating. Treating the blight as a small threat and disregarding the past about it shows how unfit he is to rule, Loghain is senile, he holds onto small pieces of the past and doesn't look at the bigger picture, to him, it's still the period of time in the Calling and Orlaisians are still occupying Fereldan.

I think this quote sums it up quite nicely, "“The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." - Leslie Poles Hartley

Modifié par MortalEngines, 31 août 2010 - 09:59 .

[CalJones]

The case against Arland certainly was justified - however, as Levy says, not much is remembered about him. What is remembered is that the wardens were banished for attempting a coup. You get to witness the events of Soldiers Peak due to the tear in the Veil, but you and your companions are alone in this, unfortunately.

As far as Loghain goes, he is certainly not senile - he is just unusually driven. Certainly, the sensible thing to do would have been to allow the wardens into Fereldan but refused their support troops (ie, the chevaliers), but as far as he's concerned, they are all Orlesian and therefore dangerous.

I believe he outlaws the wardens, not so much to make things difficult for the Warden and Alistair, but to prevent the Orlesian wardens entering Fereldan.

Again, as many have argued before, the fact only wardens can end the Blight is a matter of legend and he is very sceptical of their abilities (and probably more so due to his irritation with Cailan's fan worship). More to the point, as has also been pointed out earlier in the thread, hardly anyone outside the wardens even believed it was a proper Blight until much later into the game. (Even Cailan doubts it's a Blight and he wanted it to be one so that he could be like the heroes of old, as he says).

By the time it's revealed to be a Blight, Loghain is way too far down his path to change course. I'm certainly not defending him in this - his tragedy is that he is mired in the past and he is not flexible enough to change. However, we, as the player, are blessed with certain outside perspectives that he doesn't have, so it's pretty easy for us to say "He is wrong and I would have done this instead."

[Costin_Razvan]

You must remember that the case with Arland was justified

Justified because of morality? Doesn't work out that way in the world of politics, and regardless of whether Arland did, IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED to seek to overthrow a King using rebellion as the means to do it. It is outright treason regardless of motives and reasons.

[MortalEngines]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

You must remember that the case with Arland was justified

Justified because of morality? Doesn't work out that way in the world of politics, and regardless of whether Arland did, IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED to seek to overthrow a King using rebellion as the means to do it. It is outright treason regardless of motives and reasons.

What else can you do when faced with a Tyrannical king? Means through politics would get you no where when facing a feudal monarchy, the only way to fight suppression in that situation is a coup. Had the Wardens succeeded do you really think they would of been seen as traitors afterwards? The only reason they were depicted as so is because they failed and Arland painted them as he wished.

Think about how Oliver Cromwell overthrew the British Monarchy, in the end, he didn't call for a revolution (and I doubt the Wardens would have) but more power for the people. Had he failed, Cromwell would of being painted as a traitor, but he succeeded and now is seen as a liberator. 

How else could you get rid of a Tyrannical king outside of a rebellion or assasination?

CalJones wrote...

The case against Arland certainly was justified - however, as Levy says, not much is remembered about him. What is remembered is that the wardens were banished for attempting a coup. You get to witness the events of Soldiers Peak due to the tear in the Veil, but you and your companions are alone in this, unfortunately.
As far as Loghain goes, he is certainly not senile - he is just unusually driven. Certainly, the sensible thing to do would have been to allow the wardens into Fereldan but refused their support troops (ie, the chevaliers), but as far as he's concerned, they are all Orlesian and therefore dangerous.
I believe he outlaws the wardens, not so much to make things difficult for the Warden and Alistair, but to prevent the Orlesian wardens entering Fereldan.
Again, as many have argued before, the fact only wardens can end the Blight is a matter of legend and he is very sceptical of their abilities (and probably more so due to his irritation with Cailan's fan worship). More to the point, as has also been pointed out earlier in the thread, hardly anyone outside the wardens even believed it was a proper Blight until much later into the game. (Even Cailan doubts it's a Blight and he wanted it to be one so that he could be like the heroes of old, as he says). 
By the time it's revealed to be a Blight, Loghain is way too far down his path to change course. I'm certainly not defending him in this - his tragedy is that he is mired in the past and he is not flexible enough to change. However, we, as the player, are blessed with certain outside perspectives that he doesn't have, so it's pretty easy for us to say "He is wrong and I would have done this instead."

I won't continue this debate, I think I'll do the right thing and throw my hands in the air...

"I lost this discussion, your argument skills are too much for me, I can't refute :P"

Modifié par MortalEngines, 31 août 2010 - 11:11 .

[MortalEngines]

Double post 

Modifié par MortalEngines, 31 août 2010 - 11:10 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Wait what?



I'm no history buff but didn't a lot of overthrowing go on back in the days when kings mattered.

It did of course. I wasn't denying that.



However, attempting to place overthrowing a rightful Monarch as anything but treason is wrong.



MortalEngines: Olive Cromwell is not seen by all as liberator, quite a good number of historians ( like myself ) view him as a traitor, while others accuse him of being a dictator. Whatever the common people think is of little relevance as the common people don't know even 5% of what happened.

[Costin_Razvan]

Well sure but sometimes you've got to do it.

There is no person in history that has overthrown a king or government and improved things in the years to come without wanting personal power as their only motive ( or as one of their motives ).

Regardless of what has to be done or not, the person who does it is still a traitor to the rightful government/king. Not saying they can't have the right reasons, but how you classify such people is not a subject of debate.

Now obviously some could turn my words against me and say Loghain is a traitor, but I would point that while Loghain did have a traitorous plan IF he could convince Cailan to not allow the Orlesians in Fereldan, the manner in which Cailan was killed was not treason on Loghain's part. It was a strategic decision done by a general in a battle. The same general who had urged Cailan not to take part in the fighting for it could go ill ( and it did go ill ).

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 31 août 2010 - 11:51 .

[Aeowyn]

Sophia Dryden's coup against Arland was imo only for her personal gain. Ever since she lost the throne to him she always had a grudge and I just think she used the Wardens as means to an end. I mean seriously, summoning demons? Letting that crazy mage experiment on fellow Wardens, killing them in the progress?

Even if that is not always the case, she should have stayed neutral in the matter. Arland died anyway so...

[Sarah1281]

MortalEngines wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

You must remember that the case with Arland was justified

Justified because of morality? Doesn't work out that way in the world of politics, and regardless of whether Arland did, IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED to seek to overthrow a King using rebellion as the means to do it. It is outright treason regardless of motives and reasons.

What else can you do when faced with a Tyrannical king? Means through politics would get you no where when facing a feudal monarchy, the only way to fight suppression in that situation is a coup. Had the Wardens succeeded do you really think they would of been seen as traitors afterwards? The only reason they were depicted as so is because they failed and Arland painted them as he wished.

Think about how Oliver Cromwell overthrew the British Monarchy, in the end, he didn't call for a revolution (and I doubt the Wardens would have) but more power for the people. Had he failed, Cromwell would of being painted as a traitor, but he succeeded and now is seen as a liberator. 

How else could you get rid of a Tyrannical king outside of a rebellion or assasination?

Even if he was a tyrant (and we get a very biased version of events from demon!Sophia and Avernus) then he hardly does any oppressing of GWs until after they start rebelling against them. It is not the place of the GWs as a whole to get involved with an attempted coup. I understand why Sophia was involved but she's the one who mobilized the others. The GWs themselves were considered obsolete two centuries after a Blight and that's why Sophia was forced to join. Once the GWs rebelled against him, I think Arland was perfectly justified in cutting off their funding from the crown (really, who would continue to fund a rebelloin against him?) and then ultimately banishing them.

GWs are supposed to fight darkspawn. They also need to make sure that the leader of the nation they are in isn't hostile towards them because it will make their job more difficult. As Arland didn't show any signs of going after the GWs at all, getting involved in that was a very shortsighted move on the part of the GWs and set up a dangerous precedent for kicking GWs out of a country.

[MortalEngines]

 

Costin_Razvan wrote...
MortalEngines: Olive Cromwell is not seen by all as liberator, quite a good number of historians ( like myself ) view him as a traitor, while others accuse him of being a dictator. Whatever the common people think is of little relevance as the common people don't know even 5% of what happened.

Wow..just wow. Being British myself I take grave offense to this, for several reasons. Firstly, 'what common people think is little relevance as common people don't know even 5% of what happened', what do you define as common people? People who don't have 'royal' blood in their veins? The monarchs of England have shown that they know NOTHING about running the country.

Firstly Charles I's predecessors, Elizabeth I and James I, both left HUGE deficets due to their Luxury spending on trivial things that furthered their own pleasure. In order to gain money and build an army against useless campaign against France and Spain, he forced people to join the Army and fined them if they did not appear at this coronation.

Later, Charles reintroduced obsolete feudal taxes such as purveyance, wardship, and forest laws. THEN worse of all, he brought in Ship Tax, which should only be done in times of war (which he had yet to start) and only on coastal regions. Charles, however, argued that there was no legal bar to collecting the tax during peacetime and throughout the whole of the kingdom. Ship Money provided between £150,000 to £200,000 annually between 1634–1638, after which yields declined steeply. (Remember £200,000 is the same as about 200 Million in these days, maybe even more). 

The king also derived money through the granting of monopolies, despite a statute forbidding such action (The Monopolies Act, 1624), which, though inefficient, raised an estimated £100,000 a year in the late 1630s in royal revenue.

Is this the man whose knows 'best' for his people? Most of this money was used to fuel his own pocket (there was no war at this time), he drained the country of all it's wealth. I think the COMMON people have a RIGHT to stand up and demand this to be rectified. After all, last I remember a country isn't made up of royals. And that was only SOME of what Charles did.

If it wasn't for Cromwell, the UK would be a much different place. Now the Monarchy is just a figure head and the power is the in people's hands.

Modifié par MortalEngines, 31 août 2010 - 03:07 .

[Sarah1281]

I could be wrong, of course, but in that context I read 'common people' as 'non-historians.'

[Costin_Razvan]

what do you define as common people? People who don't have 'royal' blood in their veins? The monarchs of England have shown that they know NOTHING about running the country.

By Common people I refer to those who don't bother checking up their history. You got to admit one thing: Most people could give a **** about history.

The only relevant opinions are those who did bother to study the matter.

If it wasn't for Cromwell, the UK would be a much different place. Now the Monarchy is just a figure head and the power is the in people's hands.

I won't bother debating the Cromwell subject ( as I wasn't trying to argue over what good or bad he did ), but I will just say that my point wasn't whether what he did was good or not, but rather that no matter how you put it, he was still a traitor to the crown, albeit one which is seen in a favorable fashion but a traitor nonetheless.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 31 août 2010 - 02:57 .

[MortalEngines]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

what do you define as common people? People who don't have 'royal' blood in their veins? The monarchs of England have shown that they know NOTHING about running the country.

By Common people I refer to those who don't bother checking up their history. You got to admit one thing: Most people could give a **** about history.

The only relevant opinions are those who did bother to study the matter.

If it wasn't for Cromwell, the UK would be a much different place. Now the Monarchy is just a figure head and the power is the in people's hands.

I won't bother debating the Cromwell subject ( as I wasn't trying to argue over what good or bad he did ), but I will just say that my point wasn't whether what he did was good or not, but rather that no matter how you put it, he was still a traitor to the crown, albeit one which is seen in a favorable fashion but a traitor nonetheless.

Sorry my bad, I assumed by Common people you refer to those who aren't of royal blood (and FYI everyone is taught history in England from a young age, hence why I know what I know).

I don't want to debate the Cromwell topic further either. But I'm curious, why are so in such defense of Monarchy? Correct me if I'm wrong but most monarchs come to be of the royal line, through A) War Usurping the throne. Monarchy in its nature deems that for change to happen there must of be treason or war involved. There will always come a bad king and if someone must get rid of them they must.

If Cromwell was a traitor, so were the Americans in the Civil War and the French in the Revolution. Russia were also traitors. 

Modifié par MortalEngines, 31 août 2010 - 03:06 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

All based on pure paranoia and no evidence whatsoever. Wardens tried a coup d'etat in Ferelden 400 years earlier with a tyrant king and that makes them a threat forever?

If they attempted a coup before, what's stopping them from doing it again?

That is your reasoning?  Pure guilt by association?

Addai67 wrote...
What is your evidence in-game or otherwise for Orlesian financing and support of Fereldan Wardens?

Because other than the Anderfels, it was clear that Orlais had the most Wardens. Add the fact that Orlais is the most powerful nation around, that Wardens are active in Orlesian politics (the Orlesian wArden commander is a member of court) and that the Anderfels is so poor it couldnt' possibly generate enough income to support the wardens as an organisation, and it's evident that they need backing from the other nations, namely Orlais.

They had the backing of the Fereldan throne, under both Maric and Cailan.  They did not need Orlesian support.  The rest is speculation on your part.

Addai67 wrote...
Why should them spreading the Chantry be a concern of Loghain's?

Because the Chantry is an Orlesian organisation created by an Orlesian Emperor (the empire and the chantry were created by this same man). Helping spread the Chantry = spreading Orlesian influence. If the Wardens did that in the past for Orlais, why wouldn't they do it now?

?!!!  Andraste was born in Denerim, how do you figure the Chantry is an Orlesian organization?!  While he doesn't seem to be especially pious (no more than your average Fereldan), there is absolutely no evidence in the game or books that Loghain is anti-Chantry or that he considers them spies.

You're just making stuff up, KoP. 

Modifié par Addai67, 31 août 2010 - 03:08 .