12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

I remember when I first came to these forums and was rather surprised at the insane number of people who had killed Loghain. Don't get me wrong I can totally understand it, simply was surprising to see so people who claimed they were playing a good character take a man's life.

So much for good guys right?!

Knight: By all that is holy, please don't mention Lotion again. There are people like Addai or Tirigon who are stubborn as hell in their opinions but at leas they can be made to listen to reason and logic, but ffs was Lotion a zealot, as you called him.

Anyway, was playing the Dragon Age 2 Demo. Loghain is reffered to in it quite a few times... as a traitor and all that.

Bleh, here we go again. I can get why soldiers who had been at the battle expecting Loghain to charge would view it as a betrayal, but hell Hawke himself refers to it as such without you having any way to change that thinking. 

When the greatest general of the country, well known for his fierce patriotism and keen mind, suddenly decides to pull back his troops from a battle and let the entire south fall then it could very well mean that it could be more then just a bloody betrayal of an idiot King.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 23 février 2011 - 05:29 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Anyway, was playing the Dragon Age 2 Demo. Loghain is reffered to in it quite a few times... as a traitor and all that.

Bleh, here we go again. I can get why soldiers who had been at the battle expecting Loghain to charge would view it as a betrayal, but hell Hawke himself refers to it as such without you having any way to change that thinking. 

When the greatest general of the country, well known for his fierce patriotism and keen mind, suddenly decides to pull back his troops from a battle and let the entire south fall then it could very well mean that it could be more then just a bloody betrayal of an idiot King.

Since it is at the beginning, maybe that's why. Perhaps if you play a game with an import, as the game progresses, based on what choices you made, he will be referenced as a hero later on.

Well, thatis what I hope would happen, if your origins choices really do impact the story. Which, I hope they do. Though I have two games so far where I spared Loghain at the Landsmeet, neither are games I would want to import, for certain reasons. Both you and KoP will be most likely importing a save where Loghain lives past the Landsmeet as your first playthrough, so you guys will be the first of us to know if those decisions make any impact.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Costin, on my most recent play through I got new dialogue from Anora. I'm actually a fan of Loghain as a character, but one I have always seen as well deserving of death. Interestingly, Anora uses even stronger language than I would use. She flatout says Loghain "murdered" her husband.



It doesn't surprise me that in DAII he's being called a traitor. While I agree there is much more depth to Loghain than simply being an evil villian, it's clear the game portrays him as a paranoid, hateful tyrant who feels the ends justify (any) means.



As far as how a "good" guy can justify killing someone... come on now. Really?

[nos_astra]

Yeah, I may have laughed out loud when I had my Fem!Hawke inform Flemeth that Cailan was dead and she said: King Cailan was betrayed at Ostagar. Obviously overwhelming faith in Loghain's reputation is not a defining characteristic for Ferelden.

[Persephone]

klarabella wrote...

Yeah, I may have laughed out loud when I had my Fem!Hawke inform Flemeth that Cailan was dead and she said: King Cailan was betrayed at Ostagar. Obviously overwhelming faith in Loghain's reputation is not a defining characteristic for Ferelden.

Nobody ever said it was. Why should the old cliché change my mind again?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Costin, on my most recent play through I got new dialogue from Anora. I'm actually a fan of Loghain as a character, but one I have always seen as well deserving of death. Interestingly, Anora uses even stronger language than I would use. She flatout says Loghain "murdered" her husband.

It doesn't surprise me that in DAII he's being called a traitor. While I agree there is much more depth to Loghain than simply being an evil villian, it's clear the game portrays him as a paranoid, hateful tyrant who feels the ends justify (any) means.

Uhh, really? Clear to you, perhaps, but even before I became a Loghain fan, that is not how I saw him portrayed. I saw him portrayed as a paranoid fallen hero who became a victim of his own fears and legend, who kept digging himself deeper the more he tried to get control of a situation that was spiraling out of control because of his own mistakes and lack of pure focus.

hateful? Maybe, when it comes to Orlesians, though even in game, we learn he had good reasons. But a tyrant? Not even in the same ballpark. Loghain couldn't be a tyrant if he tried. Howe, had he been the one in charge, would have actually succeeded at bringing about true tyranny to Ferelden.

Loghain's rule wasn;t tyranny, it was a complete cluster f*ck. Big difference.

As far as how a "good" guy can justify killing someone... come on now. Really?

I think he was refering to the hypocrisy of people who claim to be playing "good" characters, who are supposed to be paragons of virtue and light, executing a man who surrenders to you, and still claiming they are champions of truth and jusutice. Many people choose to execute Loghain, but a number of them do so for reasons other than "justice".

[Costin_Razvan]

I think he was refering to the hypocrisy of people who claim to be playing "good" characters, who are supposed to be paragons of virtue and light, executing a man who surrenders to you, and still claiming they are champions of truth and jusutice. Many people choose to execute Loghain, but a number of them do so for reasons other than "justice"

Exactly this.

[USArmyParatrooper]

If murder and slavery don't define someone as a tyrant, what does? It doesn't get much more tyrannical than killing off your political opposition and literally enslaving your own people.

[Persephone]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

If murder and slavery don't define someone as a tyrant, what does? It doesn't get much more tyrannical than killing off your political opposition and literally enslaving your own people.

I have yet to see anyone call Elizabeth I. a tyrant. But never mind history.....

[Persephone]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I think he was refering to the hypocrisy of people who claim to be playing "good" characters, who are supposed to be paragons of virtue and light, executing a man who surrenders to you, and still claiming they are champions of truth and jusutice. Many people choose to execute Loghain, but a number of them do so for reasons other than "justice"

Exactly this.

Seconded.

[DragonRacer13]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

I think he was refering to the hypocrisy of people who claim to be playing "good" characters, who are supposed to be paragons of virtue and light, executing a man who surrenders to you, and still claiming they are champions of truth and jusutice. Many people choose to execute Loghain, but a number of them do so for reasons other than "justice".

This brings to mind Gandalf's quote from "Fellowship of the Ring" regarding Gollum: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

As far as DA2, I will be importing what I consider my "canon" save -- everybody lives. Alistair and Anora on the throne together, Loghain does the DR at the Warden's behest, and my female city elf slays the Archdemon and stays on as Bann of the Alienage while Loghain becomes the Grey Warden recruiter. I have no Awakening data, so we'll see if that changes anything in regards to Aramanthine (and Anders... that'll be fascinating to watch unfold) and Loghain shipping off to Orlais (if that issue is even brought up). I'll pop on and report if anything in the intro re: Loghain/Ostagar changes, since he and my Warden ended on very good friendship terms. I'm taking March 8th and the rest of the week off work, so I'll have a good headstart on the game as far as "reporting" goes.

[Persephone]

DragonRacer13 wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

I think he was refering to the hypocrisy of people who claim to be playing "good" characters, who are supposed to be paragons of virtue and light, executing a man who surrenders to you, and still claiming they are champions of truth and jusutice. Many people choose to execute Loghain, but a number of them do so for reasons other than "justice".

This brings to mind Gandalf's quote from "Fellowship of the Ring" regarding Gollum: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

As far as DA2, I will be importing what I consider my "canon" save -- everybody lives. Alistair and Anora on the throne together, Loghain does the DR at the Warden's behest, and my female city elf slays the Archdemon and stays on as Bann of the Alienage while Loghain becomes the Grey Warden recruiter. I have no Awakening data, so we'll see if that changes anything in regards to Aramanthine (and Anders... that'll be fascinating to watch unfold) and Loghain shipping off to Orlais (if that issue is even brought up). I'll pop on and report if anything in the intro re: Loghain/Ostagar changes, since he and my Warden ended on very good friendship terms. I'm taking March 8th and the rest of the week off work, so I'll have a good headstart on the game as far as "reporting" goes.

Now THAT'S dedication! :lol: (Yes, an Alistair quote! Heh! ) And we only get it on March 11th. So NOT fair!:innocent:

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

If murder and slavery don't define someone as a tyrant, what does? It doesn't get much more tyrannical than killing off your political opposition and literally enslaving your own people.

I'd disagree. Killing off one's political opposition is actually common and expected practice in Thedas, as it was pretty much in just about every civilization/empire in history. And the poltical opposition he was killing off were the rebelious banns, who pretty much said "F*ck you, we'll fight you rather than join you." Eamon he did not attempt to kill, he attempted to sicken and incapacitate for a period of time.

I'll bring this up again, because I do not think you are looking at context here. You are calling a man a tyrant because he kills opposing Banns and sells off the elves into slavery in a country where:

1. Same Banns kill one another and plot/start wars with one another of petty things. Wars that kill people and destroy property over such earth shattering reasons like what to name your dog, or something about a tree. 

2. Slaying rebels is actually expected. Not doing so would actually be considered a sign of weakness and unfitness to rule. Maric, who was considered Ferelden's savior and a "good" and "just" king slew not only the Bann who killed his mother, but several others who were supporting the occupation. And he did so while they were unarmed, unsuspecting, and in a church/chantry.

3. He sold elves into slavery in a society that considers them inferior and fit for abuse. A society that periodically supports going into their neighborhoods, burning down their homes, slaughtering their women and children, whenever they start to get upset over something. A society where few people really care that a noble can go into their neighborhood and abduct and rape their women on a wedding day with little fear of legal reprisal. A society where they are basically slaves in all but name, since they are only permitted work which is dirty, servile, and pays almost nothing.

This is also a society that approves of tearing mage children from their families and locking them up in a tower, where they are under the iron fist of an order of religous drug addicts who can basically exterimate them all, innocents and children included, if they feel the situation calls for it.

Now, I ask again, Loghain is a "murdering slaver tyrant"....how exactly? Ferelden is a country populated by murderous, petty religous bigots and racists who muder, rape, and come very close to slavery on an every day basis, and this is when things are "normal".

Applying 20th century western mores and democratic opinions to a country that is generally modeled on dark ages/medieval Europe just doesn't work. It's a whole different ball game.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Skadi, what you're basically saying is that Loghain can't be considered a villianous character because pretty much everyone behaved the way he did.



So Loghain gets to retain his virtue when he poisons Eamon (the REAL reason of which was because he was loyal to the king). He gets to retain his virtue when he lies to smear the Wardens' name and pulls every stop trying to kill them. He gets to retain his virtue when he enslves the poorest of his people.



But maker forbid a "good guy" Warden kill the guy who not only left them for dead on the battlefield, but smeared their name and tried to kill them.



Your argument is actually reasonable IF a double standard wasn't applied. What's more, you aren't exactly given many choices. You can either kill him, or have him replace the one guy who fought at your side from the begining.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Skadi, what you're basically saying is that Loghain can't be considered a villianous character because pretty much everyone behaved the way he did.

So Loghain gets to retain his virtue when he poisons Eamon (the REAL reason of which was because he was loyal to the king). He gets to retain his virtue when he lies to smear the Wardens' name and pulls every stop trying to kill them. He gets to retain his virtue when he enslves the poorest of his people.

But maker forbid a "good guy" Warden kill the guy who not only left them for dead on the battlefield, but smeared their name and tried to kill them.

Your argument is actually reasonable IF a double standard wasn't applied. What's more, you aren't exactly given many choices. You can either kill him, or have him replace the one guy who fought at your side from the begining.

Who ever said anything about "virtue"? I certainly did not. I never once said Loghain was "virtuous" by any stretch of the imagination. I simply said his actions do not make him an evil mad tyrant. I've already pointed out I think he is a man who tried to play a game (politcs) that he had no business playing, because he was utterly clueless, and you can't run a country like he tried without the whole thing falling apart.

Nor am I applying a double standard, I was pointing out Costin's observation of percieved hypocrisy, of which I can see his point. Nor do I really care whether or not people execute him in their playthroughs. i do in both of my canons. What I am arguing over is perspective here, and role playing. Nio matter where your Warden comes from, they come from and live in a world where morality and ethics really don't hold the same water they do in other settings, and executing Loghain for "justice" in a land that is nearly lawless, where legal right is determined by how well you can brain your opponent in front of your nation's leadership, is ironic, to say the least.

I am also disagreeing with your assesment that Loghain is a murdering tyrant. I never saw him as such, and still don't.  Even by modern standards, when you look at what tyrants and dictators are like in the modern world, he's still pretty tame.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Skadi, what you're basically saying is that Loghain can't be considered a villianous character because pretty much everyone behaved the way he did.

So Loghain gets to retain his virtue when he poisons Eamon (the REAL reason of which was because he was loyal to the king). He gets to retain his virtue when he lies to smear the Wardens' name and pulls every stop trying to kill them. He gets to retain his virtue when he enslves the poorest of his people.

But maker forbid a "good guy" Warden kill the guy who not only left them for dead on the battlefield, but smeared their name and tried to kill them.

Your argument is actually reasonable IF a double standard wasn't applied. What's more, you aren't exactly given many choices. You can either kill him, or have him replace the one guy who fought at your side from the begining.

Who ever said anything about "virtue"? I certainly did not. I never once said Loghain was "virtuous" by any stretch of the imagination. I simply said his actions do not make him an evil mad tyrant. I've already pointed out I think he is a man who tried to play a game (politcs) that he had no business playing, because he was utterly clueless, and you can't run a country like he tried without the whole thing falling apart.

Nor am I applying a double standard, I was pointing out Costin's observation of percieved hypocrisy, of which I can see his point. Nor do I really care whether or not people execute him in their playthroughs. i do in both of my canons. What I am arguing over is perspective here, and role playing. Nio matter where your Warden comes from, they come from and live in a world where morality and ethics really don't hold the same water they do in other settings, and executing Loghain for "justice" in a land that is nearly lawless, where legal right is determined by how well you can brain your opponent in front of your nation's leadership, is ironic, to say the least.

I am also disagreeing with your assesment that Loghain is a murdering tyrant. I never saw him as such, and still don't.  Even by modern standards, when you look at what tyrants and dictators are like in the modern world, he's still pretty tame.

I don't think your assessments apply regardless of whether you're talking about society today or in the world they created. Why did Loghain go to such great lengths to cover his tracks at Ostagar? Why didn't he just tell everyone it was his best move to flee in his judgment? Because he would have been seen as a traitor. Why didn't he just come in force and take Eamon out himself? It's acceptable in their society, right? Why was Eamon so excited you found proof Loghain was running slaves? Because even if you choose not to use the word 'tyrant' it was still considered a very dickish thing to do.

Sure, in today's society there are a few dicators that would be considered worse than him, but he would still be considered tyrannical. And this is mostly because the writers wanted the game to be friendly to all demographics, including gays and woman (which I applaud, BTW). But in reality in those days women subservant to men.

But back to the point, IF you are going by standards of Ferelden culture, a "good" Warden is more than justified in slaying Loghain in the name of justice. And even if the Warden is a "paragon" of  good and virtue , then it's reasonable to conclude that Loghain's actions have offended his sense of decency beyond the point of redemtion.

I reject the notion that if a good and virtuous Warden doesn't kick Alistair to the curb then he/she is a hypocrit.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Anyway, was playing the Dragon Age 2 Demo. Loghain is reffered to in it quite a few times... as a traitor and all that.

Bleh, here we go again. I can get why soldiers who had been at the battle expecting Loghain to charge would view it as a betrayal, but hell Hawke himself refers to it as such without you having any way to change that thinking. 

When the greatest general of the country, well known for his fierce patriotism and keen mind, suddenly decides to pull back his troops from a battle and let the entire south fall then it could very well mean that it could be more then just a bloody betrayal of an idiot King.

It's really irrelevent. Hawke afterall lives in Lothering, whose troops Loghain recalled, which might engender bitterness. Hawke is far from being unbiased, and even farther from knowing what happened at Ostagar.

So I really couldn't care less what Hawke has to say on the matter.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 23 février 2011 - 04:54 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Hawke fought at Ostagar actually, as did Carver and Aveline.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Hawke fought at Ostagar actually, as did Carver and Aveline.

They did?

Eh still, if they were in the valley, they might have felt betrayed by Loghain, understandably so. And are far from offering an unbiased account of what happened, nor are they able to if they were in the valley. So I still couldn't care less. 

[Persephone]

[quote]USArmyParatrooper wrote...

[quote]Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

[quote]USArmyParatrooper wrote...

But back to the point, IF you are going by standards of Ferelden culture, a "good" Warden is more than justified in slaying Loghain in the name of justice. And even if the Warden is a "paragon" of  good and virtue , then it's reasonable to conclude that Loghain's actions have offended his sense of decency beyond the point of redemtion.

I reject the notion that if a good and virtuous Warden doesn't kick Alistair to the curb then he/she is a hypocrit.

[/quote]

You do realize it's Alistair kicking HIMSELF to the curb? Why does it always come back to that?

[Costin_Razvan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Hawke fought at Ostagar actually, as did Carver and Aveline.

They did?

Eh still, if they were in the valley, they might have felt betrayed by Loghain, understandably so. And are far from offering an unbiased account of what happened, nor are they able to if they were in the valley. So I still couldn't care less. 

Don't really care either, at least not that much. I just don't want to find drunken Alistair and have Hawke agree to his idiotic reasons for leaving.

Yes I will import my DN who had Alistair exiled.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...



I don't think your assessments apply regardless of whether you're talking about society today or in the world they created. Why did Loghain go to such great lengths to cover his tracks at Ostagar? Why didn't he just tell everyone it was his best move to flee in his judgment? Because he would have been seen as a traitor. Why didn't he just come in force and take Eamon out himself? It's acceptable in their society, right? Why was Eamon so excited you found proof Loghain was running slaves? Because even if you choose not to use the word 'tyrant' it was still considered a very dickish thing to do.

Sigh.

You do realize that he wasn't trying to kill Eamon, do you not? He wanted to disable/incapacitate him without killing him. This plan was made before Ostagar, and was carried out before then. And which is why he used Jowan. Poison and things like that are not things Loghain knows anything about. He's a general who was a farmer. He wasn't a mage or herbalist or assasin.

And I don't even think I need to go into why he didn't just go into Redcliffe and attack Eamon. Aside from how politically stupid it would be simply to go in and attack someone openly.

Yes, slavery is a dickish thing to do. So are alot of things that go on in Ferelden. But if you are going to punish Loghain for selling elves into slavery, you may as well punish the Couslands, Eamon, and everyone else who keeps elf servants, as their lot is little better than a slave's.

Sure, in today's society there are a few dicators that would be considered worse than him, but he would still be considered tyrannical. And this is mostly because the writers wanted the game to be friendly to all demographics, including gays and woman (which I applaud, BTW). But in reality in those days women subservant to men.

Yes, I know this. It's a fantasy setting. I said it was loosely based on medieval times. 

Can you name me a modern day dictator/tyrant that is worse than Loghain? Because I'm a bit at a loss there.

lemme think....Hitler? Stalin? Mugabe? Hussein? Pol Pot? Mao? Nope, sorry, Loghain would get laughed out of office beside these guys.

But back to the point, IF you are going by standards of Ferelden culture, a "good" Warden is more than justified in slaying Loghain in the name of justice. And even if the Warden is a "paragon" of  good and virtue , then it's reasonable to conclude that Loghain's actions have offended his sense of decency beyond the point of redemtion.

I reject the notion that if a good and virtuous Warden doesn't kick Alistair to the curb then he/she is a hypocrit.

What does Alistair have to do with this? We are discussing Loghain alone, not the consequence of recruiting him. Kicking Alistair to the curb has nothing to do with this, unless, of course, Alistair's rage-fest is a deciding factor for you in sparing Loghain. It is not for me (even when I kill him).

And I personally reject the idea of a good and virtuous Warden. They are called "Grey" Wardens for a reason.

[Giggles_Manically]

SOME DA2 SPOILERS ABOUT LOGHAIN AND SUCH:





Hawke and Carver served in third company under Captain Varel according to the demo.

Since I just finished the demo... yeah Loghain got a rough deal.

Varric: Cailan and all his men were betrayed by his most trusted general. -While showing an image of Loghain with a dagger....
Aveline: We fell to the betrayal, not the darkspawn.
Hawke: King Cailan was betrayed. 

So yeah DA2 points a bad picture of Loghain.
Wonder what Varric will say about Loghain if he is a Grey Warden or Redeemed at the end?

Modifié par Giggles_Manically, 23 février 2011 - 07:48 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Varel? As in Senechal Varel?

It is to be expected really, I wasn't expecting them to even attempt to portray an objective image. And like I said before, I don't really care. Varric is a storyteller who wasn't there and Hawke was I assume in the valley where he couldn't get a clear image of the battle and couldn't be unbiased.

[Costin_Razvan]

Then there is a dialogue option where Hawke tells Flemeth.



Flemeth: What will your king think then?

Hawke: The King is dead, betrayed.....