12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Giggles_Manically]

Wulfram wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...


However what really upset me was listening to him in the War Meeting. He honestly was blowing off Loghain and Duncan. blathering on about GLORY! in the middle of a war, and acting like a child. You dont ignore youre most senior men in a time like that. Also while a king is a symbol you dont put the symnol on the front line. Honestly during the whole war meeting this was my face:
.

Meh.  Loghain babbles incoherently in that meeting.  I applaud Cailan's tolerance.

Really? Loghain was talking to Calian like a child with ADHD.

[Wulfram]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Meh.  Loghain babbles incoherently in that meeting.  I applaud Cailan's tolerance.

Really? Loghain was talking to Calian like a child with ADHD.

He was incoherent.  He can't decide whether the darkspawn are a real threat or not.  I guess he was distracted keeping an eye out for orlesians hiding under the table

[Elhanan]

No matter how well written Loghain may be, he is still the villain, and one that continues to stumble with each step in attempts to cover his crimes. I would rather follow one like Alistair, or even Cailan than a scheming, self-serving egomaniac like Loghain or his toadie Howe.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jvee wrote...
I feel like you are confusing justice and duty.  Alistair's desertion reflects his devotion to justice even above his sense of duty.  

That is only  the case if he really believes in "do justice even should the whole world perish" mentality that I find....extremily unappealing.

Justice for me is instrumental. When you don't care if your people live or die because of one man, then you are not being just nor are you qualified to talk about justice. You are being vengeful.
There is no justice in abandonning thousands who had nothing to do with what Loghain did.  

Like there is in abandoning those who had nothing to do with what Cailan did?

LOL at all the ironies, but I'm not going to argue them.  Ad hoc reasoning from Alistair's subsequent actions doesn't have any bearing on the actual argument he makes against Loghain, which would be the same whether or not there was a personal element.  And the whole pebble that started this tirade of righteous indignation going is that I said his reasoning is not only personal.

Whatever.

Modifié par Addai67, 15 septembre 2010 - 04:08 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Elhanan wrote...

No matter how well written Loghain may be, he is still the villain, and one that continues to stumble with each step in attempts to cover his crimes. I would rather follow one like Alistair, or even Cailan than a scheming, self-serving egomaniac like Loghain or his toadie Howe.

Yes lets follow someone with his head shoved up the arse of Glory.
Or someone you have to yell at for a year to get him on the throne who dosent want it.

Much better choices!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

Like there is in abandoning those who had nothing to do with what Cailan did?

Tactical and strategic considerations to save half of Ferelden's army from a battle that was most probably lost.
They were soldiers and they know what they got themselves into. Soldiers get abandoned all the time if it's the sound thing to do.

And I never said Loghain's act was "just", justice has nothign to do with military planing.

Addai67 wrote...
Ad hoc reasoning from Alistair's subsequent actions doesn't have any bearing on the actual argument he makes against Loghain

And I am not disputing the validity of his arguments. I was disputing how much he actually cares about what he is arguing for and his reaction points to him not giving a damn.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 septembre 2010 - 04:17 .

[CalJones]

The saying "don't cut off your nose to spite your face" applies to Alistair when he quits the wardens. His hatred of Loghain is beyond reason (and yes, you can also argue that Loghain's hatred of Orlais is beyond reason) to the point that he will turn his back on everything he cares about.

One thing you can say about Loghain is that he doesn't turn away from anything, even if it means his death. He has many failings, but he is prepared to see things through to the end.

[jpdipity]

CalJones wrote...


One thing you can say about Loghain is that he doesn't turn away from anything, even if it means his death. He has many failings, but he is prepared to see things through to the end.

He doesn't turn away from anything.  Wait, except for the battle at Ostagar and, oh yeah, his King...

[Addai]

jpdipity wrote...

CalJones wrote...


One thing you can say about Loghain is that he doesn't turn away from anything, even if it means his death. He has many failings, but he is prepared to see things through to the end.

He doesn't turn away from anything.  Wait, except for the battle at Ostagar and, oh yeah, his King...

And the Fereldan law and custom that he fought for. 

[Giggles_Manically]

jpdipity wrote...

CalJones wrote...


One thing you can say about Loghain is that he doesn't turn away from anything, even if it means his death. He has many failings, but he is prepared to see things through to the end.

He doesn't turn away from anything.  Wait, except for the battle at Ostagar and, oh yeah, his King...

Yes cause its a BRILLIANT idea to risk the ENTIRE army to try and POSSIBLY win the battle.

Calian and Loghain should have done things differently, but CALIAN was the one who forced the situation.

[KnightofPhoenix]

jpdipity wrote...
He doesn't turn away from anything.  Wait, except for the battle at Ostagar and, oh yeah, his King...

In the process, he saved Ferelden from a lost battle.
His king was a traitorous imbecile, the only thing I fault Loghain for is him not killing Cailan before.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 septembre 2010 - 05:21 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Two last things to throw out before I get to class:

1) Maric made Loghain swear that he would never put another person's life over that of Fereldan's fate. I think it was in TST.



2) Calian was a gigantic idiot, who risked everything to live a fantasy and cost hundreds if not thousands of men and women's lives. THAT is the real crime at Ostagar.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
2) Calian was a gigantic idiot, who risked everything to live a fantasy and cost hundreds if not thousands of men and women's lives. THAT is the real crime at Ostagar.

The even bigger crime is that apparently he knew the battle was lost too. So he didn't risk. He just threw not only himself, but thousands of his men to die for what? Glory.
DA is making me hate that word.  

[Giggles_Manically]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...
2) Calian was a gigantic idiot, who risked everything to live a fantasy and cost hundreds if not thousands of men and women's lives. THAT is the real crime at Ostagar.

The even bigger crime is that apparently he knew the battle was lost too. So he didn't risk. He just threw not only himself, but thousands of his men to die for what? Glory.
DA is making me hate that word.  

It just makes me hate Cailan.

Honestly there a dozens of things you could do instead of an open battle.  And Calian took the riskiest path he could.

[jpdipity]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jpdipity wrote...
He doesn't turn away from anything.  Wait, except for the battle at Ostagar and, oh yeah, his King...

In the process, he saved Ferelden from a lost battle.
His king was a traitorous imbecile, the only thing I fault Loghain for is him not killing Cailan before.

I just though CalJones' statement was funny and couldn't pass up the opportunity to comment about it, but it was not a judgement of Loghain's actions.

I don't disagree with Loghain for turning away.  I see reason why he'd do it and why it may have made sense for him to do it.  I personally don't think that it had anything to do with strategy, I think it was a policy move for him.  He did not agree with how Cailan was running things and seized an opportunity to make a change for what he thought would be better maybe for Feredan, maybe for him - doesn't matter which IMO.  Loghain could not see the battlefield nor did he have any scouts tell him what was going on down in the field - he turned without an obvious reason or Cauthrien would not have even questioned it. 

It was a bold move by Loghain and, unfortunately for him, it failed; so, my Wardens always kill him or let Alistair kill him because he is too big a threat to leave alive.  Much like the reason Bhelan kills Harrowmont.  If Loghain had won, I'd say that he was a brilliant, stategist who deserved all the booty he can carry and more.  However, he fails over and over throughout the game - so, he pays for his failure (not his morals) every single time.

Modifié par jpdipity, 15 septembre 2010 - 05:36 .

[Costin_Razvan]

The even bigger crime is that apparently he knew the battle was lost too. So he didn't risk. He just threw not only himself, but thousands of his men to die for what? Glory.
DA is making me hate that word.

Yeah....Glory is all fine as a tool leaders can use to raise morale of their troops.

But Glory has no ****ing place when laying down tactics.

 However, he fails over and over throughout the game - so, he pays for his failure (not his morals) every single time.

Napoleon also failed, quite greatly. But he was not executed for it.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 15 septembre 2010 - 05:41 .

[Wulfram]

Would Duncan have let the grey wardens be slaughtered at the word of a glory mad king? Or does he just not know anything about fighting darkspawn?

[KnightofPhoenix]

jpdipity wrote...
  Loghain could not see the battlefield nor did he have any scouts tell him what was going on down in the field - he turned without an obvious reason or Cauthrien would not have even questioned it. 

Mary Kirby said he could see part of it and saw the darkspawn were more numerous than expected.
And the beacon took too long to be lit. The whole hammer flanking can't work if the sickle can't hold. And the front army can't hold against the darkspawn for long, so the beacon had to be lit after a certain time lest the army breaks (even Duncan had a sense of the time needed for the plan to work). So Loghain estimated that the beacon took to long to be lit and that the front had collapsed.

jpdipity wrote...
If Loghain had won, I'd say that he was a brilliant, stategist who deserved all the booty he can carry and more.  However, he fails over and over throughout the game - so, he pays for his failure (not his morals) every single time.

A valid way to look at things for sure.

[Sarah1281]

jpdipity wrote...

Loghain could not see the battlefield nor did he have any scouts tell him what was going on down in the field - he turned without an obvious reason or Cauthrien would not have even questioned it.

I don't think it's surprising that, however obvious the reasons for retreating were, she was still uncomfortable with leaving the King. In that cutscene, he seemed to be the only one she was concerned about but that doesn't make the decision to leave any less valid or Cailan any easier to save.

[CalJones]

Heh, when I said he didn't turn away from anything, I meant deviating from his plan... Rather than in a literal sense. Perhaps I should have phrased that better.



And yes, the more I learn about Cailan, the more I am glad Loghain left him to get squished.

[Wulfram]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jpdipity wrote...
  Loghain could not see the battlefield nor did he have any scouts tell him what was going on down in the field - he turned without an obvious reason or Cauthrien would not have even questioned it. 

Mary Kirby said he could see part of it and saw the darkspawn were more numerous than expected.
And the beacon took too long to be lit. The whole hammer flanking can't work if the sickle can't hold. And the front army can't hold against the darkspawn for long, so the beacon had to be lit after a certain time lest the army breaks (even Duncan had a sense of the time needed for the plan to work). So Loghain estimated that the beacon took to long to be lit and that the front had collapsed.

If Loghain thought the beacon was too late, he should have charged earlier

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...
If Loghain thought the beacon was too late, he should have charged earlier

Too big of a risk, he could allow his whole army to be caught off guard and then sandwhiched.
He saw the darkspawn were more numerous than anyone expected.

[FellowerOfOdin]

Loghain is, by far, my favourite character in the game and agreeing with the title, yes, he is the deepest one as well. Most people usually make the mistake of calling him evil and the game's antagonist - yet this is far, far away from the truth.
As others already stated, Loghain is the one who saved Ferelden in the first place by retreating from Ostagar. If Loghain had not fled, the last remaining soldiers of Ferelden would have fallen as well and there wouldn't have been anything to stop the Darkspawn from taking over whole Ferelden. If you want to point at someone responsible for the death of so many people, point at King Cailan, a king as mature as a boy lost in his dream world of elves and goblins. Cailan was willing to risk everything for his personal glory, already seeing himself fighting with the invincible Grey Wardens.
But hey, I got it, it's a lot easier to like the guy who falls in battle and is the typical High Fantasy hero guy...too bad it's not a High Fantasy world, eh? 

Sure, Loghain did a lot of mistakes, nobody doubts that, but most people don't even think about the good things he has done - he saved Ferelden twice and is even willing to sacrifice himself to kill the archdemon. Sure, most people will just say "LOL yeah so he can be a hero", but guess what, Loghain did not need to follow the warden. Even if he would have been killed at the landsmeed, he'd still be remembered being the war hero he is, at least by the common people. 

Loghain is not a real villain, certainly not, and neither is he a classic hero, but he is a deep, interesting character who is responsible for the best ending in the game, the Redeemer ending.

[phaonica]

jpdipity wrote...
 If Loghain had won, I'd say that he was a brilliant, stategist who deserved all the booty he can carry and more.  However, he fails over and over throughout the game - so, he pays for his failure (not his morals) every single time.

This reminded me of something Zevran says

"I happen to be a very loyal person. Up until the point where someone expects me to die for failing. That's not a fault, really, is it? I mean, unless you're the sort who would do the same thing. In which case I... don't come very well recommended, I suppose."

I guess I'm not very inclined to execute someone for failure, especially considering all the nice saying we have about plans:
"No battle plan survives contact with the enemy"
"The best laid schemes of mice and men / Go oft awry"

[phaonica]

CalJones wrote...

Heh, when I said he didn't turn away from anything, I meant deviating from his plan... Rather than in a literal sense. Perhaps I should have phrased that better. 

Though yielding is not necessarily a weakness, either, or rather being able to admit to a mistake and try to correct it, or changing the plan when it isn't working for whatever reason.