12857 réponses à ce sujet

[CalJones]

Yes, I think a lot of us feel that way. I never bought books of games (I was quite snobbish about that!) until TSR, and I only bought that because I wanted MOAR LOGHAIN! I'd already decided that he was awesome and didn't need the book to tell me that, but it does flesh out his character a fair bit.

I'll agree some of his actions are hard to excuse (mostly the slavery, actually) but most are entirely understandable. I actually think he didn't go far enough with Eamon - that old bugger needed to die. Loghain just needed a better plan, there - one that didn't involve Jowan, for starters.

[Morwen Eledhwen]

CalJones wrote...

I actually think he didn't go far enough with Eamon - that old bugger needed to die. Loghain just needed a better plan, there - one that didn't involve Jowan, for starters.

Do you think he really meant to kill Eamon, or just put him out of commission while the Blight/kingship issues were still in question? I wouldn't put it past Jowan to be too incompetant to carry out a successful murder, but I always thought that his instructions were to incapacitate Eamon (and thus any serious political threat from Redcliffe) only. If Loghain meant for Eamon to die but heard that he merely had a lingering illness, wouldn't he have tried to find a way to finish the job?

[nenosronhir]

Yeah, the slavery is pretty much the one thing that really jumps to mind for me, also. But that idea has a slimy Howe-residue all over it (which might not be true, I can't remember exactly what Loghain says in response at the Landsmeet when you confront him about it).

I'm still trying to figure out what Loghain was trying to do with Eamon. If he wanted to kill him, I think he would have actually killed him, instead of popping him into a coma/drawing out his death. Which is assuming that's all the poison and not demon!Connor's influence running interference.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Gaider already stated Loghain's intention wasn't to kill Eamon, just incapacitate him while he dealt with Cailan. The plan to poison Eamon was before Ostagar. Cailan was getting too friendly with the Orlesians, and Loghain wanted to deal with him without someone cunning and somewhat powerful like Eamon interfereing.

Which was, I believe, a mistake, but one Loghain made because he lacks the ruthlessness needed to be an effective schemer. I think he let sentimentality rule him more that he let on, and didn't assasinate Cailan long ago because he was Rowan and Maric's son. And probably didn't do Eamon in for similar reasons.

Edit to add: Yeah, we've run out of things to talk about for Loggy. And as far as DA goes, well, I can't really play my canons until certain mods are released, so I don't really have any screenshots from the game involving Loghain that aren't x-rated. And as far as Dragon Age 2 goes, I'm not really paying much attention until it gets released, and some of my esteemed and respected threadmates give their verdict on the game before I buy it, so I don't have anything to say on that front.

So for now, it Sins of a Solar Empire for me. Not that I'm complaining.

Modifié par Skadi_the_Evil_Elf, 11 février 2011 - 08:27 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Loghain is definitely not made for politics.

Machiavelli: "men should either be caressed or eliminated, because they avenge themselves for slight offenses but cannot do so for grave ones; so the offense one does to a man should be such that one does not fear revenge for it."

Not killing Eamon was a major fail on Loghain's part. The other is thinking that nobles are soldiers.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 février 2011 - 10:15 .

[Addai]

Quoting Machiavelli in a postive way- LOL.



Loghain's not a murderer, and that is no failing.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Of course I am quoting Machiavelli in a positive way.

Loghain is no leader. That is his failing when he thinks he can be one.

[Addai]

And being a leader means murdering your political opponents?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

And being a leader means murdering your political opponents?

Yes, if the circumstances demand it. Absolutely.

Much quicker and cleaner than the debacle of the civil war that he was partially responsable for aggravating.

[Giggles_Manically]

I think Loghain serves as a prime example as to why Sun Tzu said generals should not try and be politicians, and vice versa.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

And being a leader means murdering your political opponents?

Yes, if the circumstances demand it. Absolutely.

Much quicker and cleaner than the debacle of the civil war that he was partially responsable for aggravating.

He could not have foreseen a civil war, nor would killing Cailan and Eamon have necessarily prevented one.  In fact it probably would just have provoked a different kind of civil war.

I'm glad Loghain wasn't written to be your sort of "leader."

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
He could not have foreseen a civil war, nor would killing Cailan and Eamon have necessarily prevented one.  In fact it probably would just have provoked a different kind of civil war.

All those years of being in Ferelden and he still doesn't realize how fickle and unstable this mess of a country is and that anything can result in a civil war? Fail on his part.

I didn't say it would have prevented a civil war, I was very careful in picking my words. I said he was partially responsable for aggravating it.

Had he opted for manipulation and persuasion by pitting the idiot banns against each other, coupled with calculated elimination of political opponents (preferrably have them all die in Ostagar should he decide to retreat), the civil war might have been much less destructive and shorter.
And if he thinks he can't do any of this, which he evidently cannot, then he should have let Anora do it while he sticks with what he knows best, the army. But no, he thinks he can do it and he fails pretty badly.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 février 2011 - 11:07 .

[Addai]

And what in the world would give him the right to do that, i.e. eliminate all of his political opponents? Divine right of some sort? Because he's got a big army and can get away with it?

[Morwen Eledhwen]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Had he opted for manipulation and persuasion by pitting the idiot banns against each other, coupled with calculated elimination of political opponents (preferrably have them all die in Ostagar ishould he deicde to retreat), the civil war might have been much less destructive and shorter.
And if he thinks he can't do any of this, which he evidently cannot, then he should have let Anora do it while he sticks with what he knows best, the army. But no, he thinks he can do it and he fails pretty badly.  

This goes back to your comment about his "thinking nobles are soldiers" fail. I have this persisting image as I play of him falling back on Denerim after Ostagar and imagining that all Ferelden is a massive battlefield and its Banns and citizens his soldiers. "But I gave the order to retreat and rally to me for our next plan of attack! Why aren't they following orders?!?" And you know what happens to soldiers who don't obey orders. . .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

And what in the world would give him the right to do that, i.e. eliminate all of his political opponents? Divine right of some sort? Because he's got a big army and can get away with it?

lol "right". How is that relevent except for image projection for public consumption is beyond me.

It was the efficient and smart thing to do to save his people and country, and he had the material means to pull it off adequately (evidently, he doesn't have the will or smarts to do it however). That is all the "right" he needs.  
He didn't seem to have a problem ordering banns around and then killing them without having the official "right" to. Why not eliminate them much more quickly and cleanly. That would mean much less death and much less wasted ressources. 

EDIT: and he doesn't need to eliminate all opponents. Eliminate the key ones, coopt the others. Carrot and stick. Loghain doesn't seem to know how to use the carrot, and he uses the stick in a clumsy fashion.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 février 2011 - 11:16 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Morwen Eledhwen wrote...
This goes back to your comment about his "thinking nobles are soldiers" fail. I have this persisting image as I play of him falling back on Denerim after Ostagar and imagining that all Ferelden is a massive battlefield and its Banns and citizens his soldiers. "But I gave the order to retreat and rally to me for our next plan of attack! Why aren't they following orders?!?" And you know what happens to soldiers who don't obey orders. . .

And that's why I think Anora's comment that Loghain is an idealist is very accurate. He is starting with how the world ought to be, and fails to realize how the world is.

For him, the nobles ought to rally around him and obey his orders to save Ferelden. I even go further than him, for me the concept of "nobility" ought to be eliminated completely or reduced in power, replaced by provincial governors who execute the will of a central authority, with some local autonomy to prevent a rigid and cumbersome bureaucracy.

But that's not how Ferelden is.  Him starting from how he thinks it ought to be, and not how it is, is very idealistic on his part and it of course led to a complete disaster.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 février 2011 - 11:24 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
It was the efficient and smart thing to do to save his people and country, and he had the material means to pull it off adequately (evidently, he doesn't have the will or smarts to do it however). That is all the "right" he needs.  
He didn't seem to have a problem ordering banns around and then killing them without having the official "right" to. Why not eliminate them much more quickly and cleanly. That would mean much less death and much less wasted ressources. 

EDIT: and he doesn't need to eliminate all opponents. Eliminate the key ones, coopt the others. Carrot and stick. Loghain doesn't seem to know how to use the carrot, and he uses the stick in a clumsy fashion.

There was no material threat to Ferelden from either Eamon or Cailan prior to Ostagar- to his knowledge.  If you're referring to his killing of a bann in the unofficial Landsmeet in Gwaren in TST, that bann was openly calling for rejecting Maric at a delicate time in the rebellion and thus was a mortal threat.

And by "right" I mean how you could look on such murders as being justified given what Loghain knew and didn't know.  Not even Anora, scheming as she is, is shown to be as bloodthirsty as you're suggesting.

I'm not saying Loghain or Anora weren't capable of political assassination in certain circumstances.  But under the circumstances you're talking about, I'm glad they aren't as cold blooded as that.  As for generals not making good politicians, some do make good ones.  Loghain neither wanted to be a general nor a political leader- he just had to, as he saw it.

[MKDAWUSS]

What I'd like to know is, given both personalities, why Anora named Loghain regent. If he didn't want to be the head of state and she ran it for the past few years, why make that move? He still could have been GOA and she could have retained her role as HOS instead of the roles each took.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
There was no material threat to Ferelden from either Eamon or Cailan prior to Ostagar- to his knowledge.  If you're referring to his killing of a bann in the unofficial Landsmeet in Gwaren in TST, that bann was openly calling for rejecting Maric at a delicate time in the rebellion and thus was a mortal threat.

To his knowledge, which he should have had, Ferelden is a fickle country and the nobles are not his soldiers. He planned on the possibility of retreating from Ostagar and he knew Cailan was going to be down there, idiot that he is (they've been arguing about it for days before the battle). Thus, he should have realized that civil war was very likely to happen, and as such should have prepared himself to eliminate a few nobles either before the meeting he holds in Denerim, or directly after to prevent them from going back to their lands (or emprison a few). Better yet, have many potential opponents be at Ostagar and die should he decide to retreat. In the meantime, he should have exploited rivalry between the banns, and pick sides. He can't please all of them. He should eliminate the ones he can't. 

As for Eamon, he is very likely not going to abide by Loghain's authority (or Anora's) if Cailan dies which was very likely. In addition, Eamon has a claim to the throne by marriage, making him very dangerous. Plus the guy has an almost impregnable fortress and is practically the only noble who can rally the bannorn to his side. Letting him live is too much of a risk. Better be safe than sorry. He should have killed him. 

Gaider said Loghain had plans for this. Well it was a bad plan, with the exception of Uldred.

Addai67 wrote...
And by "right" I mean how you could look on such murders as being justified given what Loghain knew and didn't know.  Not even Anora, scheming as she is, is shown to be as bloodthirsty as you're suggesting.

This is not bloodthirst. This is calculated elimination of opponents who will likely prove to be a threat. Had he done that, it would have very likely avoided many deaths that his clumsy politicking was partially responsable in causing. 

Addai67 wrote...
 As for generals not making good politicians, some do make good ones.  Loghain neither wanted to be a general nor a political leader- he just had to, as he saw it.

Rarely.
And he failed badly. He should learn to stick with what he knows and stop thinking that he knows everything (ie how should one be a king, which was what he did all the time in TST), because he doesn't.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 11 février 2011 - 11:48 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

MKDAWUSS wrote...

What I'd like to know is, given both personalities, why Anora named Loghain regent. If he didn't want to be the head of state and she ran it for the past few years, why make that move? He still could have been GOA and she could have retained her role as HOS instead of the roles each took.

I think Loghain either implictly or explictly forced her. Anora may have relunctantly accepted, but I do nto see her approving of his very clumsy political style. 

I think Loghain did this for a sentimental reason. "I did this to protect you".
I believe he thought that if Anora is implicated with him, she is more likely to share the blame for what he's done. But if he was the regent and assumed full responsability, she would be less likely to blame (and indeed, Anora can remain queen despite everything).

Still, it was a very bad idea. I could have accepted it if Loghain was a political genius, but clearly he is not. He is clumsy.

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...

What I'd like to know is, given both personalities, why Anora named Loghain regent. If he didn't want to be the head of state and she ran it for the past few years, why make that move? He still could have been GOA and she could have retained her role as HOS instead of the roles each took.

I think Loghain either implictly or explictly forced her. Anora may have relunctantly accepted, but I do nto see her approving of his very clumsy political style. 

I think Loghain did this for a sentimental reason. "I did this to protect you".
I believe he thought that if Anora is implicated with him, she is more likely to share the blame for what he's done. But if he was the regent and assumed full responsability, she would be less likely to blame (and indeed, Anora can remain queen despite everything).

Still, it was a very bad idea. I could have accepted it if Loghain was a political genius, but clearly he is not. He is clumsy.

This. Definitely.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
As for Eamon, he is very likely not going to abide by Loghain's authority (or Anora's) if Cailan dies which was very likely. In addition, Eamon has a claim to the throne by marriage, making him very dangerous. Plus the guy has an almost impregnable fortress and is practically the only noble who can rally the bannorn to his side. Letting him live is too much of a risk. Better be safe than sorry. He should have killed him. 

Gaider said Loghain had plans for this. Well it was a bad plan, with the exception of Uldred.

He said that if Eamon had died, Loghain wouldn't have been too broken up.  I don't recall him saying that he had plans to murder him.

Eamon had a legitimate claim to the throne.  That is what the Landsmeet is for, to decide such matters.  Taking things into his own hands and murdering patriotic men- good men- for political reasons is beyond the pale.  Where does it end, for one thing?  Ferelden is not Antiva. 

Whether it's bloodthirst or simply statecraft is surely a matter of opinion.  Given my choice, I would certainly rather live in the Fereldan system than the Antivan one, where "the gutters run red with blood."

Modifié par Addai67, 11 février 2011 - 11:54 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
He said that if Eamon had died, Loghain wouldn't have been too broken up.  I don't recall him saying that he had plans to murder him.

I didn't say he did. I said he supposedly planned for everything, including the possibility of Cailan dying (I hope he did think that was possible, because if he didn't. Fail). Well his plan was extremily  flawed because apparently after all those years, Loghain is blind to what Ferelden is. If I didn't respect him, I'd be starting to call him an idiot by now. I am tempted to.

Addai67 wrote...
Eamon had a legitimate claim to the throne.  That is what the Landsmeet is for, to decide such matters.  Taking things into his own hands and murdering patriotic men- good men- for political reasons is beyond the pale.  Where does it end, for one thing?  Ferelden is not Antiva.

Legitimate to who? Nobles who fight each other and can't be counted on to do sh*t? Why should that matter in and of itself? Anora is popular and smarter than he is, but he decided to brush her of to the side. To secure her position, Eamon must die.

Addai67 wrote...
Whether it's bloodthirst or simply statecraft is surely a matter of opinion.  Given my choice, I would certainly rather live in the Fereldan system than the Antivan one, where "the gutters run red with blood."

Would you like to live there?
" Queen Fionne, who had the misfortune to take the throne in the eighteenth year of the Steel Age, wrote of the Bannorn, "There have been three wars this year fought over elopements. Five fought over wool. And one started by an apple tree. It isn't even winter yet. Who would believe that these same banns, now trying so hard to kill one another, just last year united to give me the crown?"

Maybe you should specify that you would rather live away from the bannorn and boast about how great the system is, as long as you are not being used as a pawn by nobles who are killing each other over trees and wool.

As for Antiva. It has no central authority, it's every noble for himself. Certainly not what I am proposing. Loghain, at least in the time of  emergency, should have established a central authority with him (or Anora) as the leviathan that the circumstances demanded. But he should have done so with subtletly, astutness and guile. Qualities that he lacks.He should know that he is politically incompetent if he does not possess those qualities.


And am I the only one who finds it incredibly ironic that Addai is defending Loghain and I am criticizing him?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 février 2011 - 12:07 .

[Addai]

Heh. I think you're just raising Anora to levels she doesn't deserve, for one thing, and for another advocating basically an overthrow of the Fereldan system and I'm not sure on what basis you think you could or should do that. Arguing from the squabbles of the bannorn is cheap. Look at the extremes of any system and criticize it only on that basis and the result is predictable.

But of course Loghain is an idiot- you are the political genius that Ferelden needs, and only you.

Modifié par Addai67, 12 février 2011 - 12:17 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

Heh. I think you're just raising Anora to levels she doesn't deserve,

Not really. But if I had the choice between Anora or Loghain as a political leader, I would pick the former.
Of course the choice is moot and an unnecessary one, it could have been both but Loghain decided not to do it, for a weak reason.

Addai67 wrote...
and for another advocating basically an overthrow of the Fereldan system and I'm not sure on what basis you think you could or should do that. Arguing from the squabbles of the bannorn is cheap. Look at the extremes of any system and criticize it only on that basis and the result is predictable.

Criticism of Ferelden's system go much more than that. Complete failure to organise a defense against Orlais and most of them siding with the invaders. If Orlais wasn't so incompetent at conquering, Ferelden would not have gotten its independence. Complete failure to organise a defense against the darkspawn, with a civil war abrupting for poor reasons ("we don't want to obey orders! The only one we can follow is the imbecile Cailan"). Only way to defend is base it on the willingess of nobles who hate each other to provide troops (see free riding and buckpassing).  One of the poorest nations in Thedas. Virtually no central authority or administration, which means obstacles to a common economic and military policy....etc (cause imagine increasing trade and making coastland nobles or nobles with ressource rich lands richer than useless banns. Civil war looming).

What you see as "squabbles" are severe flaws in the entire system, because those nobles actually have political and military power that they use in their "squabbles", preventing any central authority from rationalizing the system either via violence or immobalism in the Landsmeet or both. There is a reason why systems like those died out. And not just in the modern era. All great nations opted for central administration and weakened its elite.   Do these systems have flaws also? Yes of course. But they end up being more efficient, more productive and more capable of handling extreme situations that Ferelden is evidently unable to handle.  

Ignoring the weak sarcasm that doesn't address the point.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 février 2011 - 12:35 .