12857 réponses à ce sujet

[nos_astra]

jvee wrote...
I find Loghain's ability to turn off his humanity and do what he feels is necessary as incredibly admirable.  It is also horrifying.  It is admirably horrifying.

Well put.

[testing123]

phaonica wrote...
I didn't read the books until after playing through the game twice. And I didn't read a lot of forum stuff until after that second Landsmeet, either, because I was personally curious if anyone else had the same compulsion to spare him that I did. Loghain was a stranger to me, and I may not have known him very long, but that was a reason for me to *spare* him. I didn't even know him, how could I judge? And other the stranger, who suggests recruiting Loghain, is the only other person around with Warden experience. I've been a Warden for one year with scarcely any direction, what makes me think I know better than him about Warden business? That isn't to say that I shouldn't question Riordan, only that whatever arguments Riordan made would carry more weight to me than a total stranger's. 

I think, without a doubt, sparing Loghain is the compassionate choice.  It may not seem very compassionate towards Alistair, but at least he is given the chance to come around.  And, of course, you could spare him because you think making him a grey warden would be a humiliation, which isn't very compassionate.  But, ultimately, sparing him saves the most lives in that moment.

I would like to speak about Riordan's interjection.  The two reasons he provides for sparing Loghain are adding an extra body and utilizing a brilliant military mind.  Alistair's hissy fit eliminates the first benefit immediately.  So you are left with how much you value his military mind versus how much you feel you can trust him.  An added benefit that isn't really brought up is that enlisting the Hero of Ferelden in your faction could greatly improve your influence in a country that has just recently begun working with the Grey Wardens again, though it is questionable how much of his 'hero status' can be salvaged after recent events.  As for Riordan's seniority, I don't think it really matters at all.  You don't need to defer to his judgement when he will tell you exactly why he should be spared.

Regarding Alistair, is it really all that surprising he wants Loghain dead?  He's been weepy over Duncan the entire game.  But to be fair, Alistair's revenge is Duncan's, Cailan's, and the many others who were sacrificed for Loghain's greater good, justice.  In the book, presumably with Loghain's blessing, Maric traps and murders those responsible for his Mother's death.  Was that justice or vengeance?  Can't they coincide?    

Sarah1281 wrote...
Yes, she didn't live to see the end of the rebellion but how does that make her less great?

It makes her less great than her son, under whom the rebellion succeeded.  Her wisdom likely greatly influenced her son and his choices, so I don't mean to give her no credit but neither does she deserve all the credit or even the majority of the credit.

Once Moira took over, however, things really started to look up.

This makes her more successful than her father, not more successful than her son.

She was betrayed, yes, but that doesn't automatically mean that she was a failure. 

Yes it does.  It definitely does.  Death without achieving your goal is failure.  She did a lot for the rebellion.  Without her, the rebellion likely wouldn't even exist on the level it was when Maric took over.  But it was Maric and Loghain who turned the tide and insured Ferelden independence.  Not 'Queen' Moira.

[Addai]

Zjarcal wrote...

That's hilarious!

Wife quoting husband who's using her account to post something she disagrees with. Nice!

You should have seen the thread where I posted a "blah blah h8 Anora" post and then scrolled up to see my husband's "I <3 Anora" post a few replies above it.  Uninentional hilarity that time.

And it's actually his account.    I was the only one posting on the forums for ages so I've got squatter's rights and he has to post with my female elf avvies and my signature links.  I've thus far resisted making him post with an "Alistair's rose" banner flashing.  I do give him some dignity, at least.  LOL

[nos_astra]

jvee wrote...
I think, without a doubt, sparing Loghain is the compassionate choice.  It may not seem very compassionate towards Alistair, but at least he is given the chance to come around.  And, of course, you could spare him because you think making him a grey warden would be a humiliation, which isn't very compassionate.  But, ultimately, sparing him saves the most lives in that moment.

You managed to convince me. I never thought this was possible.

Why? How?

Modifié par klarabella, 04 septembre 2010 - 07:35 .

[phaonica]

jvee wrote...

I can't speak to what he thinks should have been done.  Maybe he thinks he should have abandoned his duties as king and run away with her so they could live together happily forever and ever...  But when he runs into her in the fade, he rejects the idea of staying with her and it's not only because he perceives it as a dream but because he recognizes he has a duty to those depending on him.  (I think that's what happened.  Correct me if I'm wrong.)

It is true that he admirably leaves Fade!Katriel because he made a promise to Fiona. But what about his responsibilities/promise to Cailan, and Ferelden? Apparently those promises don't carry enough weight for him?

If I were forced to venture a guess, I would say he thinks he should have spared her.  Forced her to run away and never see her again.  No one knew about her crimes or her identity as an assassin but Loghain (I'm pretty sure.) At least then she would have been alive.  It is a sentimental point of view, but a point of view nonetheless.

I don't know. The people might have found out about Katriel's true involvement at West Hill when they discovered that Severan had a bounty on her. Regret may not necessarily be weakness, but to me it often feels like what was meant to "harden" him didn't stick at all.

I mean absolutely no offense, I'm just giving you my honest answer.  I think that is crazy.  If I spared Loghain at the expense of Alistair and Loghain refused to be compliant, or worse, tried to turn on me, I would totally regret it. Even if I thought it was a good idea initially.  I would want Alistair back.  I would want to apologize for being such a fool. Hell, if Loghain didn't turn on me and everything worked out perfectly I would still regret it if I had a strong connection to Alistair.  I would always wonder if there was a way I could have made it work with both of them.  I see your point though, perhaps there is a difference between true regret and idle second guessing.   

No offense taken.  I played that character as kind of a "Ferelden can't afford for me to have regrets" type. She does not do something unless she means it. She wanted to give Loghain another chance, and she felt that she would regret it if she didn't. She felt that even if he turned on her after all, she would not regret her choice to have tried.

 Loghain is nothing without Maric.  Maric is nothing without Loghain.

I agree. I think that if Loghain had been the one who was gone, and Maric was around during this Blight, that it is just as likely that Maric would not have done any better of a job than Loghain did. 

Loghain is incapable of allowing others to seem him vulnerable, so it's hard for anyone to have a real connection with him.  

I don't think Loghain is incapable of allowing other to see him vulnerable. He has serious walls, but so does Morrigan, and despite her best efforts, certain characters find their way through her walls.

I find Loghain's ability to turn off his humanity and do what he feels is necessary as incredibly admirable.  It is also horrifying.  It is admirably horrifying. 

Fair enough. I think my character finds herself to be a whole lot like him. She wants to believe that her willingness to "do what is necessary" does not make her unable to love or be loved. She doesn't want love to get in the way of her duty. With Loghain, there is that understanding that Ferelden comes first, not each other. Even Maric counted on this attribute in Loghain, that Loghain would put Ferelden's wellbeing above Maric's.

[CalJones]

You have an admirable marriage!



As far as the Theirins go, whatever your opinion of Moira and Maric, Cailan wasn't a great king, and whilst Alistair may or may not work out well (depending on whether he's hardened and who he's married to), the likelihood is he'll be the last anyway. Unless, of course, he's not actually Fiona's son... but that's another debate entirely.

[Addai]

CalJones wrote...

You have an admirable marriage!

Heh.  He tried for a long time to get me into his toon games.  Now he has to live with his (partial) success!

As far as the Theirins go, whatever your opinion of Moira and Maric, Cailan wasn't a great king, and whilst Alistair may or may not work out well (depending on whether he's hardened and who he's married to), the likelihood is he'll be the last anyway. Unless, of course, he's not actually Fiona's son... but that's another debate entirely.

Chances are good there's no heir for either Mac Tir or Theirin and Ferelden gets reset to 0.  I mean, in my canon game, Alistair (sole ruler with Warden mistress) has as much chance producing an heir as Anora with a Warden consort.

[Zjarcal]

Addai67 wrote...

I've thus far resisted making him post with an "Alistair's rose" banner flashing.  I do give him some dignity, at least.  LOL

DO IT!

If it was him he'd have an I <3 Loghain and Anora signature.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Chances are good there's no heir for either Mac Tir or Theirin and Ferelden gets reset to 0.  I mean, in my canon game, Alistair (sole ruler with Warden mistress) has as much chance producing an heir as Anora with a Warden consort.

Indeed, chances seem not so high, but it's still possible (My Cousland is pondering on the possibility of a Cousland dynasty if Anora is indeed barren). The problematic scenario would be Alistair and Queen
 producing an heir, which is impossible without resorting to bastards.

[phaonica]

jvee wrote...
I think, without a doubt, sparing Loghain is the compassionate choice.  It may not seem very compassionate towards Alistair, but at least he is given the chance to come around.  And, of course, you could spare him because you think making him a grey warden would be a humiliation, which isn't very compassionate.  But, ultimately, sparing him saves the most lives in that moment.]

I agree. If you spare Loghain, both Loghain and Alistair have the potential to survive it and go on with their lives, for better or worse.

I would like to speak about Riordan's interjection. The two reasons he provides for sparing Loghain are adding an extra body and utilizing a brilliant military mind.  Alistair's hissy fit eliminates the first benefit immediately.  So you are left with how much you value his military mind versus how much you feel you can trust him.  An added benefit that isn't really brought up is that enlisting the Hero of Ferelden in your faction could greatly improve your influence in a country that has just recently begun working with the Grey Wardens again, though it is questionable how much of his 'hero status' can be salvaged after recent events.  As for Riordan's seniority, I don't think it really matters at all.  You don't need to defer to his judgement when he will tell you exactly why he should be spared.

Riordan's seniority didn't matter to me so much as his experience did. I didn't spare Loghain just because Riordan told me I to. I felt that I had more reasons to believe that Loghain was sincere in his love for Ferelden than to believe that he just wanted power. I believed that if he was sincere in that, and that if we could agree to work together, that Ferelden would be all the stronger for it. I also believed that if he was sincere, and because he was a Hero of Ferelden, that I would like to give him another chance to prove himself.

Regarding Alistair, is it really all that surprising he wants Loghain dead?  He's been weepy over Duncan the entire game.  But to be fair, Alistair's revenge is Duncan's, Cailan's, and the many others who were sacrificed for Loghain's greater good, justice.  In the book, presumably with Loghain's blessing, Maric traps and murders those responsible for his Mother's death.  Was that justice or vengeance?  Can't they coincide?  

I just cannot see Alistair as the embodiment of the justice that is demanded against Loghain in Cailan's, the other Wardens', or whomever else's name.  I am one of those who interprets his line "Forget Maric, this is for Duncan," as "Forget Ferelden, this is for Me." Justice and vengeance can coincide, but nobody else in the game unconditionally demands Loghain's execution.

Modifié par phaonica, 04 septembre 2010 - 08:10 .

[testing123]

klarabella wrote...
 You managed to convince me. I never thought this was possible.

Why? How? 

Don't worry, just because it's the compassionate choice doesn't mean he deserves compassion. =P

phaonica wrote...
But what about his responsibilities/promise to Cailan, and Ferelden? Apparently those promises don't carry enough weight for him?

Well that's hardly fair!  We don't really know why he left do we?  As far as I know, it's a complete mystery where he went or why.  It is entirely possible that his decision to leave was driven by an obligation to protect his son and Ferelden.  Are you implying his bleeding heart led him off on some selfish expedition?

I agree. I think that if Loghain had been the one who was gone, and Maric was around during this Blight, that it is just as likely that Maric would not have done any better of a job than Loghain did. 

Heh, that isn't really what I meant.  Personally, I think Maric would have succeeded during the Blight where Loghain failed.  I think Maric would be more likely to accept cooperation from Orlais and their wardens.  Cailan abused Loghain's paranoia to increase his own personal glory and role in the battle.  I see no evidence that Maric ever acted that way.  What I meant was, either Maric would have never become king without Loghain, or he would have been a failure after assuming the throne.  But without Maric, Loghain's support of the rebellion would have been futile.

phaonica wrote...
I don't think Loghain is incapable of allowing other to see him vulnerable. He has serious walls, but so does Morrigan, and despite her best efforts, certain characters find their way through her walls. 

Morrigan and Loghain are not the same character.  Morrigan values strength and survival.  I don't think she has a real sense of duty.  Loghain's paradigm is duty.  He recognizes strength's value in achieving those goals.  To break through Morrigan's emotional walls, you need to teach her that feeling emotions is not a weakness and that she doesn't need to live every moment of her life as a survival scenario.  I.. can't see a situation where Loghain would be willing to recognize the value of living that way.  He will always see individuals lives, including his own, as sadly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, why build an attachment?

phaonica wrote...
Justice and vengeance can coincide, but nobody else in the game unconditionally demands Loghain's execution.

The player potentially does. =P  Loghain is a criminal.  Those affected by his actions deserve justice.  Granting him amnesty is not justice.  Obviously, the situation is designed to force a player decision.  The player is the judge.  Would it really matter if every noble at the Landsmeet was screaming for his execution?  Ultimately, it is still on you to decide if you think his life is more valuable than the enforcement of justice.  Considering he is the sole opposition to your leadership, showing him mercy could be viewed by the Landsmeet as weakness.  It could affect morale in the coming battle.  This would jeapordize your ultimate goal, stopping the Blight.  These are all arguments Loghain would use if he wasn't the one under the knife.

Modifié par jvee, 05 septembre 2010 - 01:01 .

[Monica21]

jvee wrote...

phaonica wrote...
Justice and vengeance can coincide, but nobody else in the game unconditionally demands Loghain's execution.

The player potentially does. =P  Loghain is a criminal.  Those affected by his actions deserve justice.  Granting him amnesty is not justice.  Obviously, the situation is designed to force a player decision.  The player is the judge.  Would it really matter if every noble at the Landsmeet was screaming for his execution?  Ultimately, it is still on you to decide if you think his life is more valuable than the enforcement of justice.  Consdering he is the sole opposition to your leadership, showing him mercy could be viewed by the Landsmeet as weakness.  It could affect morale in the coming battle.  This would jeapordize your ultimate goal, stopping the Blight.  These are all arguments Loghain would use if he wasn't the one under the knife.

The player gets to determine what justice really is. Is it killing Loghain or having him serve as a Warden? It's not a hard and fast rule, and I think has been shown to be pretty fluid, depending on who's playing. It can be argued that both options are equally bad, especially considering the latter leads to a lingering death and the potential of a considerable amount of pain before dying in the Deep Roads. Both choices condemn him to death.

As for showing him mercy, he yields to you, therefore he is no longer opposing you, and there is no longer any opposition to your leadership. The manner in which you plan to kill him falls squarely in your lap. Most of the Banns in the room fought with him during the rebellion, and I don't believe that choosing to use him as a Warden would affect morale or jeopardize stopping the Blight.

[CalJones]

jvee wrote...

phaonica wrote...
But what about his responsibilities/promise to Cailan, and Ferelden? Apparently those promises don't carry enough weight for him?

Well that's hardly fair!  We don't really know why he left do we?  As far as I know, it's a complete mystery where he went or why.  It is entirely possible that his decision to leave was driven by an obligation to protect his son and Ferelden.  Are you implying his bleeding heart led him off on some selfish expedition?

Ah, I think she's referring to when he wandered off into the Deep Roads with the Orlesian Wardens in The Calling (which was irresponsible), not when he died at sea.

[testing123]

Monica21 wrote...
The player gets to determine what justice really is. Is it killing Loghain or having him serve as a Warden? It's not a hard and fast rule, and I think has been shown to be pretty fluid, depending on who's playing. It can be argued that both options are equally bad, especially considering the latter leads to a lingering death and the potential of a considerable amount of pain before dying in the Deep Roads. Both choices condemn him to death.

As for showing him mercy, he yields to you, therefore he is no longer opposing you, and there is no longer any opposition to your leadership. The manner in which you plan to kill him falls squarely in your lap. Most of the Banns in the room fought with him during the rebellion, and I don't believe that choosing to use him as a Warden would affect morale or jeopardize stopping the Blight.

If you consider sparing Loghain 'justice' then you are arguing that becoming a Grey Warden is a punishment.  Not only that, you are arguing that it is a sufficient punishment for the man who has committed more crimes against humanity than any other character in the game.

Loghain was condemned to death when he was born.  If you spare him you're granting him relative autonomy for a loose pledge to your cause.  You're giving him the opportunity to redeem himself for what he's done.  Does a man who has caused so much suffering deserve the chance to be remembered as a hero?  That hardly feels like justice.  

Loghain surrendered to my judgement.  He was willing to accept whatever I chose.  The safe choice is to eliminate all remnants of my opposition, regardless of their perceived submission.  As long as he lives, those loyal to him can maintain hope.  Sofia Dryden comes to mind.

I don't really know how many of the nobles at the Landsmeet fought alongside Loghain for independence.  What I do know is that many of them fought against him in the much more recent civil war.  And, if the player did their job in acquiring evidence against him, proved that Loghain not only caused great harm to Ferelden's citizens, but even nobles and their families present at the Landsmeet.  I can't say how many would support his execution, but I do know that not everyone present will perceive him as a sympathetic figure.  The perception that he escaped punishment is enough to make me appear weak.  I cannot afford that when I am about to lead armies into a battle against the archdemon.  I maintain that Loghain would nod his head right along with every single one of those arguments were it anyone else facing execution.     

CalJones wrote...
Ah, I think she's referring to when he wandered off into the Deep Roads with the Orlesian Wardens in The Calling (which was irresponsible), not when he died at sea. 

My mistake.  Arguably, it would be more irresponsible not to aid the Grey Wardens.  The situation, as they present it, is a potential hazard to all of Thedas.  If that is to be believed, then what you are arguing is that Maric's duty is more to Ferelden than it is to Thedas.  Fine.  But Ferelden is part of Thedas and would share its fate in any 'doomsday scenario.'  In regards to Cailan, Maric feels like a failure as a parent and potentially feels like Cailan is in safer hands with Loghain than with himself.  If you are a hazard to your child would it not be more irresponsible to selfishly remain in their lives rather than abandon them despite your love?  

Due to his adventure, Maric learns his own value and returns to the throne, hopefully a little wiser.  Loghain learns that Orlais cannot be trusted and he must be ever vigilant of their plots against the Ferelden throne.  That perception costs thousands of lives and, without the intervention of the warden, may have done irreparable harm to the war efforts against the Blight.  

[Aeowyn]

I spared him, if only for compassionate reasons alone. Yes he did do terrible things but its better for him to live with those choices and face the consequences than giving him an easy way out. Nothing is black and white, there is always a grey area and so many layers to that and you can never judge a person so easily.

I can understand Alistair's need for revenge as well and don't blame him for it, because I think he is a pretty deep character as well if you look back to where he's coming from and how his childhood has been. It's not that hard to understand why he clings on to people who show him a tiny bit of good attention. Anyway, my point is that I absolutely HATE it that you can't convince Alistair that sparing Loghain is for the best. There were so many situations in the game where a third option was available, and a third option was definitely needed there imo.

As for Anora, I always put her on the throne. Alistair never wanted to be King and I hate Eamon's so called traditionalism. Could seriously write an essay on why I hate Eamon.

[Monica21]

jvee wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
The player gets to determine what justice really is. Is it killing Loghain or having him serve as a Warden? It's not a hard and fast rule, and I think has been shown to be pretty fluid, depending on who's playing. It can be argued that both options are equally bad, especially considering the latter leads to a lingering death and the potential of a considerable amount of pain before dying in the Deep Roads. Both choices condemn him to death.

As for showing him mercy, he yields to you, therefore he is no longer opposing you, and there is no longer any opposition to your leadership. The manner in which you plan to kill him falls squarely in your lap. Most of the Banns in the room fought with him during the rebellion, and I don't believe that choosing to use him as a Warden would affect morale or jeopardize stopping the Blight.

If you consider sparing Loghain 'justice' then you are arguing that becoming a Grey Warden is a punishment.  Not only that, you are arguing that it is a sufficient punishment for the man who has committed more crimes against humanity than any other character in the game.

Loghain was condemned to death when he was born.  If you spare him you're granting him relative autonomy for a loose pledge to your cause.  You're giving him the opportunity to redeem himself for what he's done.  Does a man who has caused so much suffering deserve the chance to be remembered as a hero?  That hardly feels like justice.  

Loghain surrendered to my judgement.  He was willing to accept whatever I chose.  The safe choice is to eliminate all remnants of my opposition, regardless of their perceived submission.  As long as he lives, those loyal to him can maintain hope.  Sofia Dryden comes to mind.

I don't really know how many of the nobles at the Landsmeet fought alongside Loghain for independence.  What I do know is that many of them fought against him in the much more recent civil war.  And, if the player did their job in acquiring evidence against him, proved that Loghain not only caused great harm to Ferelden's citizens, but even nobles and their families present at the Landsmeet.  I can't say how many would support his execution, but I do know that not everyone present will perceive him as a sympathetic figure.  The perception that he escaped punishment is enough to make me appear weak.  I cannot afford that when I am about to lead armies into a battle against the archdemon.  I maintain that Loghain would nod his head right along with every single one of those arguments were it anyone else facing execution.    

What, exactly, about being a Grey Warden is a reward? You have persistent nightmares, fight darkspawn, never have children, and die young before you can turn into a ghoul. Yes, everyone dies, but not everyone dies the same way. Loghain becoming a Warden is not a reward nor is it exhoneration. No one suggests that he can return to whatever his life was before Ostagar. You have two options: kill him quickly or kill him slowly. Either way, you're still the determiner of how he dies. Whatever verdict you give, Loghain is still being punished.

And I don't really care if Loghain would agree with my actions because I'm not Loghain. As a Warden he does me more good alive than dead. Not only will I need a strategy to defeat the Blight (because my character doesn't know how the Archdemon dies at this point) but I will also need to recruit and rebuild the Wardens. Beheading him when the Landsmeet is already against him and he's lost is a waste. I'm not asking him politely if he wants to join the Wardens, I conscript him.

Depending on what you choose, your options at the Landsmeet can also give the perception that you're a tyrant and trying to consolidate Grey Warden power in a land where they have just been allowed admittance. They rebelled against a king previously and now two teryns have died at your hands. What about that will make the Landsmeet believe you can be trusted to further meddle in Ferelden politics without putting your own interests and those of your order first? As long as we're speculating, we might as well work out all possible scenarios for what the Landsmeet might do and think because of your actions.

[testing123]

Monica21 wrote...
What, exactly, about being a Grey Warden is a reward? You have persistent nightmares, fight darkspawn, never have children, and die young before you can turn into a ghoul. Yes, everyone dies, but not everyone dies the same way. Loghain becoming a Warden is not a reward nor is it exhoneration. No one suggests that he can return to whatever his life was before Ostagar. You have two options: kill him quickly or kill him slowly. Either way, you're still the determiner of how he dies. Whatever verdict you give, Loghain is still being punished.

Well, I never said that becoming a Warden was a reward.  This isn't binary.  There isn't only a reward or a punishment.  Nevertheless, I will entertain your argument.  Becoming a Grey Warden affords you some respect.  It is a position that others perceive as honorable.  It gives you the ear of those in power.  You technically have the right to conscript anyone, anywhere.  That is a lot of authority.  They only recruit the very best, so it is a confirmation of your strength.  So to sum it up, you are granted respect, authority, and connections to influential people.  That hardly sounds like a punishment suitable to the man responsible for the deaths of thousands, including regicide, which I assume would require an incredibly severe penalty in the world of Thedas.

And I don't really care if Loghain would agree with my actions because I'm not Loghain. As a Warden he does me more good alive than dead. Not only will I need a strategy to defeat the Blight (because my character doesn't know how the Archdemon dies at this point) but I will also need to recruit and rebuild the Wardens. Beheading him when the Landsmeet is already against him and he's lost is a waste. I'm not asking him politely if he wants to join the Wardens, I conscript him.

In case you hadn't noticed, this is a Loghain love thread.  I think it's fair to point out the hypocrisy of sparing him if you idolize him and his decisions.  That doesn't mean you have to kill him.  It doesn't mean you can't spare him and still appreciate his character.  But it is worthy of pointing out.  You said, as a Warden, he's more good to you alive than dead.  Okay.  But that isn't punishment.  That isn't justice. That's using someone for your own ends. Justice has nothing to do with it.

Depending on what you choose, your options at the Landsmeet can also give the perception that you're a tyrant and trying to consolidate Grey Warden power in a land where they have just been allowed admittance. They rebelled against a king previously and now two teryns have died at your hands. What about that will make the Landsmeet believe you can be trusted to further meddle in Ferelden politics without putting your own interests and those of your order first? As long as we're speculating, we might as well work out all possible scenarios for what the Landsmeet might do and think because of your actions.

Well, if your intention is to be a tyrant, it doesn't really matter what they think.  All that matters is that you appear strong enough to be feared.  Sparing Loghain does little to inspire fear.  It makes you look weak.  We could debate the many permutations of scenarios available at the Landsmeet but it wouldn't change anything.  My argument is that sparing Loghain isn't justice for the severity of his crimes.  That doesn't change based on how the Landsmeet perceives you.  If you want to spare him, you need to determine if his value supersedes your sense of justice.  You have essentially argued that yourself. 

    

[KnightofPhoenix]

jvee wrote...
 Sparing Loghain does little to inspire fear.  It makes you look weak.  
   

This is debatable. While fear definately is essential to being seen as strong, it isn't the only thing that could do that. For many, including myself, turning defeated opponents into allies is a feat of strength. Isn't that what Calenhad also did, spare his enemies once they were defeated?
Calenhad did inspire fear (the codex mentions him surrounded by mages and ash warriors in the landsmeet). But he also had leniency on his side, granted to *defeated* opponents which I doubt made him look weak, perhaps on the contrary.   

Had we compromised with Loghain, I might have agreed that this would have been a show of weakness. But you are not compromising, as Loghain was defeated. Sparing a defeated opponent who is willing to follow you is not necessarily weakness. You can see it as such sure. I personally don't.

This of course depends on perspective and on what you percieve as strength and weakness, which I am not faulting. But you write it in absolute terms, and that's where I disagree. Leniency historically speaking did not necessarily made the one offering it look weak and if there is an example in Ferelden, it would be Calenhad.  

And if there is any noble who thinks of leniency as a weakness and try to do something foolish, my character will be sure to remind them of that when they start begging for it

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 septembre 2010 - 01:16 .

[Giggles_Manically]

I love this old quote from the Quick and the Dead:

How come the first ones to ask for mercy, are the ones who never give it?



Sparing him is what Duncan would have done, and what I do when Riordian who has seemingly no reason to do it, wants him spared.

[testing123]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
This is debatable. While fear definately is essential to being seen as strong, it isn't the only thing that could do that. For many, including myself, turning defeated opponents into allies is a feat of strength. Isn't that what Calenhad also did, spare his enemies once they were defeated?
Calenhad did inspire fear (the codex mentions him surrounded by mages and ash warriors in the landsmeet). But he also had leniancy on his side, granted to *defeated* opponents which I doubt made him look weak, perhaps on the contrary.   

Had we compromised with Loghain, I might have agreed that this would have been a show of weakness. But you are not compromising, as Loghain was defeated. Sparing a defeated opponent who is willing to follow you is not necessarily weakness. You can see it as such sure. I personally don't.

This is of course depends on perspective and on what you percieve as strength and weakness, which I am not faulting. But you write it in absolute terms, and that's where I disagree. Leniancy historically speaking did not necessarily made the one offering it look weak and if there is an example in Ferelden, it would be Calenhad.  

And if there is any noble who thinks of leniancy as a weakness, my character wil be sure to remind him of that when he starts begging for it

An interesting point.  The key difference here is that Loghain was conscripted rather than willingly pledged to your cause.  He yields to your judgement yes, but I hardly think he had becoming a Grey Warden in mind when he surrendered.  The fact that he remains alive means that he can serve as a talisman for anyone loyal to him personally.  The safe choice is to kill him.  

I still think Sofia Dryden is a good example.  Sofia was going to be killed, instead the nobles got her conscripted.  When things went sour they went back to her and pleaded with her to overthrow the king.  She obliged, but failed. Allowing her to live was apparently poor judgement on the King's part.

[Giggles_Manically]

Except that Loghain is an obvious monster to the nobles who did terrible things.

WHen he loses the Landsmeet that means that no one is willing to follow him anymore.



Sophia was still popular, but Loghain is now a fallen figure.

[KnightofPhoenix]

jvee wrote...
An interesting point.  The key difference here is that Loghain was conscripted rather than willingly pledged to your cause.  He yields to your judgement yes, but I hardly think he had becoming a Grey Warden in mind when he surrendered.  The fact that he remains alive means that he can serve as a talisman for anyone loyal to him personally.  The safe choice is to kill him.  .

He did not object to it. He also admits that you are the better man who can save Ferelden, which can be interpretted as him pledging himself to your cause. When he surrendered, I don't think he actually thought he would be spared, hence why he doesn't explictly pledge himself to you at that point.

Killing him might also anger those still loyal to him. Killing Bhelen didn't stop the rebellion for instance. It takes more than that to do it. Sparing him might serve as proof that those loyal to him should be loyal to us.  
So I don't think there is a definitive "safest option" here, especially when no consequences are mentioned regarding either choice. Executing Alistair on the otherhand is safer, as rebellions in his name are averted.

jvee wrote...
I still think Sofia Dryden is a good example.  Sofia was going to be killed, instead the nobles got her conscripted.  When things went sour they went back to her and pleaded with her to overthrow the king.  She obliged, but failed. Allowing her to live was apparently poor judgement on the King's part.

The key difference is that she was exiled, while Loghain is under your command. And that it was the nobles who intervened for her conscription and the king compromised. With Loghain however, his fate rested on you alone and you decide, not the nobles.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 septembre 2010 - 01:35 .

[phaonica]

Sparing Loghain does little to inspire fear.  It makes you look weak.

Granting mercy does not automatically equate to weakness, any more than having regrets does. I thought Alistair's challenging me made me look weaker than anything else that happened at the Landsmeet.

My argument is that sparing Loghain isn't justice for the severity of his crimes. 

Well my character did not feel that it was her responsibility to be an instrument of justice. She had proven her strength, and she had removed him from power. It wasn't necessary to make more of an example of him than that.

That doesn't change based on how the Landsmeet perceives you.

I think that "justice" has the potential to become simply "vengeance" if it doesn't have the support of the people. You can argue that the people he commited crimes against have no representation if you don't do it, and that might be true. But for me, the action alone is not enough to demand justice, I want to know *why* something was done before I demand justice. And talking to him during the Landsmeet is not enough because of the politics involved.

[testing123]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Except that Loghain is an obvious monster to the nobles who did terrible things.
WHen he loses the Landsmeet that means that no one is willing to follow him anymore.

Sophia was still popular, but Loghain is now a fallen figure.

I won't debate with you over how Loghain is perceived by an entire group of characters, each of which have personal motivations and intentions.  I will say that Sophia expected to become queen but the Landsmeet ruled against her, presumably because they thought her rival would be easier to control.  This proved false.  My point is, circumstances change and what once was a fallen hero may become their only hope.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Killing him might also anger those still loyal to him. Killing Bhelen didn't stop the rebellion for instance. It takes more than that to do it. Sparing him might serve as proof that those loyal to him should be loyal to us.  
So I don't think there is a definitive "safest option" here, especially when no consequences are mentioned regarding either choice. Executing Alistair on the otherhand is safer, as rebellions in his name are averted. 

There you go again, pointing to unknowable results. =P

Either the logic is justified in all similar circumstances or it isn't.  You can't argue that one is safe and the other isn't based on future events we can't possibly know.  I swear, the epilogue is the worst thing that could have happened to you 'ends justify the means' guys. =P

phaonica wrote...
I think that "justice" has the potential to become simply "vengeance" if it doesn't have the support of the people. You can argue that the people he commited crimes against have no representation if you don't do it, and that might be true. But for me, the action alone is not enough to demand justice, I want to know *why* something was done before I demand justice. And talking to him during the Landsmeet is not enough because of the politics involved. 

Justice is not a democracy.  It is not a popularity contest.  I don't care why someone murdered a baby.  I only want to live in a society where he is punished for that action.  Maybe that guy was incredibly popular and so the jury decides he didn't really mean it.  Or better yet, the baby deserved it.  Society creates laws so that there are fitting consequences for our actions.  Preferably they apply to all equally.

I do not want to live in a society where someone can commit treason, usurp authority, and sell his people into slavery.  Then, when confronted with his actions he says, 'Wait, wait you guys, I had a really good reason.'  I just don't care.  I really don't.  His reasons don't matter so much that the consequences don't matter.  Human beings are fallible.  They cannot know the future.  Just because someone perceives the need for a questionable action doesn't mean he is justified.

[phaonica]

jvee wrote...

Personally, I think Maric would have succeeded during the Blight where Loghain failed.  I think Maric would be more likely to accept cooperation from Orlais and their wardens.  

Which is exactly like what Cailan wanted to do. I would like to think that Maric would have had less capacity to be manipulated than Cailan would, but I really don't know that he would have, especially without Loghain around.

Morrigan and Loghain are not the same character.  Morrigan values strength and survival.  I don't think she has a real sense of duty.  Loghain's paradigm is duty.  He recognizes strength's value in achieving those goals.  To break through Morrigan's emotional walls, you need to teach her that feeling emotions is not a weakness and that she doesn't need to live every moment of her life as a survival scenario.  I.. can't see a situation where Loghain would be willing to recognize the value of living that way.  He will always see individuals lives, including his own, as sadly inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, why build an attachment?

I don't see how they're so different. Morrigan has walls that include a feeling that loving someone could be a danger to her sense of self preservation. Futhermore, it can and is still argued that she does *not* learn that loving someone is worth the risk, because despite everything, she still leaves. Potentially, Loghain has walls that include a feeling that loving someone could be a danger to his sense of duty to Ferelden. To break through Loghain's walls, you might have to prove to him, not that an individual life could or should be more important, but in fact that it doesn't have to be. And as for "why build an attachment," again, despite her best efforts, Morrigan gets attached when someone starts getting through her walls. It's not something she does on purpose, and it might not be something that Loghain exactly does on purpose either.