12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

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

It seems unlikely to me that the troops saved at ostagar were more than those lost in the resultant civil war.  And this assumes the battle would have been lost, and lost decisively, for which we have little evidence either way.

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?

Actually, if you accept the Fighting at Ostagar is obviously stupid interpretation, then you should blame "the plan will work Your Majesty" Duncan who had the experience to assess the situation pretty well, and the ability to stop the battle easily enough by simply going home - as a grey warden he owes no allegiance to Fereldan's King

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.

The epilogue suggests only Anora remembers him particularly fondly, if he dies at the landsmeet.

I doubt the City Elves will remember his selling them into slavery very fondly, whatever happens.

[CalJones]

@ Phaonica - No it's not. It's his rigidity that proves to be his undoing. But dedication and tenacity, he has in spades.

Modifié par CalJones, 15 septembre 2010 - 06:14 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...

The epilogue suggests only Anora remembers him particularly fondly, if he dies at the landsmeet.

If you ask Bodahn for rumors after the landsmeet he says that while there are a few people who are angry at Loghain being spared, most people are relieved for they will never forget what Loghain did for them.

[Sarah1281]

Duncan who had the experience to assess the situation pretty well, and the ability to stop the battle easily enough by simply going home - as a grey warden he owes no allegiance to Fereldan's King

How the hell would that stop the battle? Assuming that there was no consequence for Duncan up and leaving (metagaming that the consequence couldn't really be greater than Loghain's Warden hunt isn't information that Duncan has), Cailan isn't fighting the battle for the sake of the Wardens. He doesn't think it's a Blight so therefore he doesn't feel he NEEDS Wardens and, in fact, had there been more men but no Wardens the battle could have been won as there was no Archdemon. The battle was fought to try and stop the horde from advancing.

[jpdipity]

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.

 

 
I know you didn’t mean it literally.  I should have put a little wink after my statement.  It made perfect sense.  The way it was worded just baited me to respond as if it was literal.  Sorry – sometimes I just can’t resist biting on things like that. 
 

phaonica wrote...

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"

 
Actually, what I said has nothing to do with Zevran’s statement.  Loghain dies because he fails was only half of my statement.  I also referenced the situation to why Bhelan kills Harrowmont.  Harrowmont failed and must be executed to stabilize the Kingship.  Loghain dies because he failed to win AND is now a threat to the Kingship alive.

Modifié par jpdipity, 15 septembre 2010 - 06:31 .

[testing123]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
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.  

Well I suppose that is essentially what I'm arguing, so once again we are at an impasse.  I'm not particularly comfortable with your wide angle view of justice.  Abandoning Ferelden has nothing to do with justice, it's about duty.  For it to be about justice you would have to believe that Alistair is passing judgement on all of those people and condemning them to death.  To be fair to Alistair, I don't think he has any reason to believe that his participation is absolutely necessary to protecting Ferelden.  But I'm getting off topic.  I reiterate that if he was truly only concerned with vengeance then you would have had to kill him in defense of Loghain, there is no way he would have just walked away.  

As I said in my original post, sparing Loghain is a world shattering moment for Alistair.  It's the point where he is forced to consider that we do not live in an ideal world where everyone is held equally responsible for their actions.  He is disgusted by this, and all he wants to do is reject the notion and escape.  A person consumed by vengeance would have become hostile at this point, not broken.  He is completely dejected.  Yes, his world view is immature but to argue that he is vengeful to the point of irrationality isn't a fair portrayal in my opinion.      

Giggles_Manically wrote...
In Awakening you see a literal spirit of justice be convinced to put off justice till after the crisis is done.
However Alistair leaves everything behind and cant be convinced to stay in most cases.

When its easier to convince a being of Justice itself, than convince a person about an issue than that is just sad.

I'm not sure of the situation you are referring to, is it regarding the end and the Architect?  If so, I believe you take a fairly large approval hit for letting him go and that is with the understanding that he will be dealt with later, as you said.  (I would also note that if this became a crisis moment for Justice then you would have to face the final battle with only 3 characters instead of 4, so there are meta reasons for his compliance.)  At the Landsmeet, it is pretty clear that you are offering Loghain amnesty in exchange for conscription to the Grey Wardens.  That is how it has always worked.  You aren't putting off justice temporarily, you are absolving him on the spot.  Service to the Grey Wardens will be his punishment.  That isn't good enough for Alistair.

Modifié par jvee, 15 septembre 2010 - 06:46 .

[Wulfram]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Duncan who had the experience to assess the situation pretty well, and the ability to stop the battle easily enough by simply going home - as a grey warden he owes no allegiance to Fereldan's King

How the hell would that stop the battle? Assuming that there was no consequence for Duncan up and leaving (metagaming that the consequence couldn't really be greater than Loghain's Warden hunt isn't information that Duncan has), Cailan isn't fighting the battle for the sake of the Wardens. He doesn't think it's a Blight so therefore he doesn't feel he NEEDS Wardens and, in fact, had there been more men but no Wardens the battle could have been won as there was no Archdemon. The battle was fought to try and stop the horde from advancing.

Cailan puts a very high value on the Grey Wardens - as Duncan says he thinks their legend makes them invincible.  He's not going to attack after they tell him "Sorry, this battle can't be won.  We're not throwing our lives away."

It requires no metagaming to think that the consequences would be less than all the Ferelden grey wardens dieing.

[KnightofPhoenix]

jvee wrote...
 For it to be about justice you would have to believe that Alistair is passing judgement on all of those people and condemning them to death.  

Hardened Alistair pretty much says he wants all of us to die.
Abandonning them is declaring that they are not worth defending. Why? Because Loghain was spared? 

jvee wrote...
 I reiterate that if he was truly only concerned with vengeance than you would have had to kill him in defense of Loghain, there is no way he would have just walked away.   

Unnecessary. He could be a vengeful coward. A quitter. Or whatever else.
Being vengeful doesn't necessarily mean that he has to go bezerk in the landsmeet.  He doesn't even have to act on it.

jvee wrote...
Yes, his world view is immature but to argue that he is vengeful to the point of irrationality isn't a fair portrayal in my opinion.     

We can argue this forever and it depends on how we view jsutice. The original point I was arguing against is that Alistair's reasons are not only personal, which is hard to substantiate.
Even if he wanted to act on his extreme sense of justice (that I do not think exists) that no one else shares, he is still being personal.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 15 septembre 2010 - 06:49 .

[phaonica]

jpdipity wrote...
 
Actually, what I said has nothing to do with Zevran’s statement.  Loghain dies because he fails was only half of my statement.  I also referenced the situation to why Bhelan kills Harrowmont.  Harrowmont failed and must be executed to stabilize the Kingship.  Loghain dies because he failed to win AND is now a threat to the Kingship alive.

Are you then saying that Loghain deserves to be exectued because his actions to secure Ferelen's safety failed? Or that he deserves to be executed because he failed to hold the kingship and therefor threatens the new kingship? Or both?

Do you think that, if spared, he will still try to regain the kingship?

[Elhanan]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

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!

As both can be the King; yeppers; you bet. You may not respect the men, but all of Ferelden should respect the throne/ office/ leadership they represent.

I do not care if Loghain won a thousand battles; he murdered his King. Loghain turned his back on the throne, his men, and the ideals of his country as his hatred for Orlais exceeded his love for his nation. He sacrificed everything for this hate, leaving nothing worth admiring other than base power, which explains Howe and his kind.

[Morwen Eledhwen]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

I was under the impression that Loghain never intended for the beacon to be lit. He was the one who closed off the Tower of Ishal because of the hole found in the basement; I thought he actually opened up that hole in order to give the Darkspawn access to the Tower. The whole "Okay, Your Majesty, you and the Grey Wardens go down there and lead the charge and I'll hang back with my soldiers until I see the beacon" plan was Loghain's, after all. IMO, he knew that only a couple of people would be sent to light the beacon so just a few Darkspawn, he thought, would be enough to take care of the beacon-lighters. Meanwhile he and his soldiers would stand patiently, hidden from the sight of the battlefield, waiting for the beacon, while Cailan and the Grey Wardens got slaughtered. Afterwards he could claim that he was just following the plan, when asked why he never ordered his troops to charge. Of course, he underestimated the awesomeness of our PCs and Alistair, so when he saw that the beacon had actually been lit he was forced to order a retreat, as he certainly had never actually planned to fight in this battle. To me this view of it not only makes more sense as a strategy (otherwise, why wait to see the beacon, which everyone knows is the sign to charge, to signal a retreat?), but it explains the intense looks he gives the beacon in that scene, and some of the heavy-handed actions he takes afterwards. If you think about it, while he doesn't seem like a man who cares much about what other people think of him, it still doesn't make sense for him to alienate so many Banns and cause so much dissention, not to mention distraction from the main task of defeating the Darkspawn horde (without having to call upon Orlais for help), unless he's in emergency post-plan-misfiring, batten-down-the-hatches mode. It also helps to explain his particular animosity towards the PC and Alistair, who ruined his plans by (a) lighting the beacon, forcing him to make his abandonment of Cailan an obvious and deliberate act instead of an unfortunate accident of war, and ( surviving to threaten his attempts to unite Ferelden under his authority.

[Sarah1281]

I do not care if Loghain won a thousand battles; he murdered his King.

No, an ogre did. Loghain left him to die but not only is it uncertain whether he could have saved him but the cost of saving one man is also not spelled out.

[testing123]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Hardened Alistair pretty much says he wants all of us to die.
Abandonning them is declaring that they are not worth defending. Why? Because Loghain was spared? 

I don't know what you are talking about.

Unnecessary. He could be a vengeful coward. A quitter. Or whatever else.
Being vengeful doesn't necessarily mean that he has to go bezerk in the landsmeet.  He doesn't even has to act on it.

He could be.  Or he could just be feeling a bit sick from what he had for dinner.  Or maybe he didn't get much sleep, so he doesn't really have the energy to take revenge.  All of those things could be true but it doesn't make the argument any less ridiculous.  What about Alistair in the game makes you feel he is a coward?  There is nothing there and it is a completely arbitrary point.

We can argue this forever and it depends on how we view jsutice. The original point I was arguing against is that Alistair's reasons are not only personal, which is hard to substantiate.
Even if he wanted to act on his extreme sense of justice (that I do not think exists) that no one else shares, he is still being personal.

Well, we agree on something.  We can argue this forever.  I've never said that it wasn't personal for Alistair.  I just don't think that automatically makes him wrong.  Or that you can equate 'personal' to 'vengeful.'  Saying that no one else shares his sense of justice is an unprovable point that you only mentioned to enhance your own point of view.  No one argues against the points Alistair makes except Anora, and I imagine her father's fate is rather personal for her as well.  Alistair deserts because he is immature and his philosophy of idealism has been shattered.  I'm not arguing that those are good reasons.  I'm merely arguing that your interpretation of him is wrong.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Morwen Eledhwen wrote...
I was under the impression that Loghain never intended for the beacon to be lit. He was the one who closed off the Tower of Ishal because of the hole found in the basement; I thought he actually opened up that hole in order to give the Darkspawn access to the Tower.

Your theory has been refuted by David gaider before. Loghain had nothing to do with the darkspawn at the tower and yes, he for the most part intented to join the battle and decided not to when the beacon was lit.
 
He planned for the possibility of retreating and would have preferred Uldred handling the signal, but he was not adamant about it. He did want the beacon to be lit.

[Morwen Eledhwen]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Morwen Eledhwen wrote...
I was under the impression that Loghain never intended for the beacon to be lit. He was the one who closed off the Tower of Ishal because of the hole found in the basement; I thought he actually opened up that hole in order to give the Darkspawn access to the Tower.

Your theory has been refuted by David gaider before. Loghain had nothing to do with the darkspawn at the tower and yes, he for the most part intented to join the battle and decided not to when the beacon was lit.
 
He planned for the possibility of retreating and would have preferred Uldred handling the signal, but he was not adamant about it. He did want the beacon to be lit.

Hmm, ok. If David Gaider has said no to that theory, then obviously it's not the case. I still think it would be a legitimate interpretation, but once the Creator has nixed it then there's really nothing else to say. Thanks for the info.

[jpdipity]

phaonica wrote...

Or that he deserves to be executed because he failed to hold the kingship and therefor threatens the new kingship? Or both?

Do you think that, if spared, he will still try to regain the kingship?

Yes.  I think that he is a very serious threat to the new Kingship and so he must be executed.  Loghain was a popular war hero.  He could easily run off and raise another army in an attempt to overthrow the leadership that I have put in place. 

Do I necessarily think Loghain will do that?  Probably not because I read the books and I believe that Loghain is being honest about respecting my Warden and trusts him/her.

Does my PC Warden think Loghain may raise armies against the throne?  YES!  My Warden has no reason to trust Loghain and has no reason to see him as anything but a threat to the throne.  His actions already dethroned one King whether intentional or not.  My PC Warden is not going to give him the opportunity to do the same thing to who he/she placed in power.  Leaving Loghain alive to take the killing blow is metagame knowledge.  So, to eliminate the possiblity of a continuing civil war, my PC Warden kills Loghain.

I say he dies for his failures because had Loghain won - he would be in the right and my Warden would be dead.  I perfectly expect that he would execute me if I lost (does that actually happen?  I've never lost the landsmeet).  I also think that Loghain expects to be executed based on his response to losing.

[KnightofPhoenix]

jvee wrote...
I don't know what you are talking about.

"I hope you get what's coming for you. All of you". Or something like that.
 
The other bit. I won't take anyone talking about justice seriously when he considers a whole nation not worth defending, because his ideals have been shattered.

You say justice is not duty. Eh, I could claim to be just all I want, but would anyone take me seriously if I leave my children to starve and neglect my duty towards them?

What about Alistair in the game makes you feel he is a coward?  There is nothing there and it is a completely arbitrary point.

I didn't say he was. I said it's not necessary for him to go bezerk for him to be considered vengeful.

The same could be said about him supposedely being a justice fanatic. Why leave then? If he thinks Loghain is an abomination that needs to be killed for the sake of justice alone, consequences be damned, why didn't he do it in the Landsmeet?
Same could be applied to vengeance.
 
Him not acting doesn't prove that he isn't vengeful anymore that it proves that he didnt' believe in justice (him leaving his people to die on the otherhand makes me not take him seriously on this point).

Well, we agree on something.  We can argue this forever.  I've never said that it wasn't personal for Alistair. 

I know you didn't, hence why I wasn't addressing you in the first place. My original point was to someone who claimed it wasn't only personal. 

Saying that no one else shares his sense of justice is an unprovable point that you only mentioned to enhance your own point of view.  No one argues against the points Alistair makes except Anora, and I imagine her father's fate is rather personal for her as well. 

No one argues for Loghain to be executed either and if what Bodahn says is true, most people are relieved if he is spared.

[Sarah1281]

I say he dies for his failures because had Loghain won - he would be in the right and my Warden would be dead. I perfectly expect that he would execute me if I lost (does that actually happen? I've never lost the landsmeet). I also think that Loghain expects to be executed based on his response to losing.

Loghain calls for your execution if you lose the vote so Eamon pulls a coup. When it gets to the duel, he kills whoever is facing him if you lose.

[phaonica]

jvee wrote...

For it to be about justice you would have to believe that Alistair is passing judgement on all of those people and condemning them to death. 

If he thinks that the PC warden is wholly representative of the institution of the Wardens and rejects the Wardens based on the actions of the PC, then I might also assume that he views the Landsmeet as representative of all of Ferelden, which has in his eyes failed to properly demand justice. So perhaps in his view, yes, Ferelden deserves to fall at that point.

[Sarah1281]

"I hope you get what's coming for you. All of you". Or something like that.

While I hate how Alistair reacts to Loghain living as well, I think it's only fair to point out that that line is what he says as he's being arrested to be executed for the crime of having Theirin blood. It's understandable why Anora wants him dead but I think it's also understandable for him to not be feeling very rational or well-intentioned towards those who are planning on murdering him.

[jpdipity]

Morwen Eledhwen wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

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.

I was under the impression that Loghain never intended for the beacon to be lit.

"Either Loghain or Uldred wanted to be in control of the tower, so that they could make sure the beacon wouldn't be lit -- if it came to that. If the beacon wasn't lit, Loghain couldn't be blamed for not joining the battle in time. But, no, they had no control over the darkspawn and no way of ensuring that the tower was swamped. That was unexpected." - David Gaider
http://social.biowar...83297/18#591250

So, Loghain wanted to have control of the beacon in case he decided not to have it lit.  He was keeping his options open.

Modifié par jpdipity, 15 septembre 2010 - 07:21 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

"I hope you get what's coming for you. All of you". Or something like that.

While I hate how Alistair reacts to Loghain living as well, I think it's only fair to point out that that line is what he says as he's being arrested to be executed for the crime of having Theirin blood. It's understandable why Anora wants him dead but I think it's also understandable for him to not be feeling very rational or well-intentioned towards those who are planning on murdering him.

Sure.
But that was after he considers Ferelden and all its people not worth defending.
For justice? Let him say to the face of all the people and children he abandonned that he did it for "justice".
 
Anyways, I gotta run to university. See you guys later.

[phaonica]

jpdipity wrote...

phaonica wrote...

Or that he deserves to be executed because he failed to hold the kingship and therefor threatens the new kingship? Or both?

Do you think that, if spared, he will still try to regain the kingship?

Yes.  I think that he is a very serious threat to the new Kingship and so he must be executed.  Loghain was a popular war hero.  He could easily run off and raise another army in an attempt to overthrow the leadership that I have put in place. 

Do I necessarily think Loghain will do that?  Probably not because I read the books and I believe that Loghain is being honest about respecting my Warden and trusts him/her.

Does my PC Warden think Loghain may raise armies against the throne?  YES!  My Warden has no reason to trust Loghain and has no reason to see him as anything but a threat to the throne.  His actions already dethroned one King whether intentional or not.  My PC Warden is not going to give him the opportunity to do the same thing to who he/she placed in power.  Leaving Loghain alive to take the killing blow is metagame knowledge.  So, to eliminate the possiblity of a continuing civil war, my PC Warden kills Loghain.

I say he dies for his failures because had Loghain won - he would be in the right and my Warden would be dead.  I perfectly expect that he would execute me if I lost (does that actually happen?  I've never lost the landsmeet).  I also think that Loghain expects to be executed based on his response to losing.

Fair enough. I was wondering to what extent you thought Loghain was a threat, and if you thought Alistair and/or Anora would similarly need to be executed to secure the crown for for the other. If your Warden would not trust Loghain to not continue to seek the crown, but would trust Alistair not to do it (if Anora took the crown), then fair enough.

[Persephone]

Addai67 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Anora might have been ok if she had not grown up with such a sense of entitlement.  That's what drives her partcular brand of selfishness IMO- she simply can't picture anyone on the throne but her.

She "grew up" with a sense of entitlement because she was entitled. It's not like a kid getting a BMW as his first car. She was betrothed to Cailan almost as soon as he was born. She was raised to be Cailan's wife and raised to be queen. She's not entitled in the unjust sense of the word.

And Alistair is Maric's true son and thus has a claim to the throne by blood.  In that sense he is no less entitled than she is, but doesn't consider the throne to be his ambition.  Anora might have come by the atittude naturally, but it doesn't make it any more attractive as a character trait.

What's wrong with being ambitious? She is a natural leader, he is not. Esp. when unhardened.

[Addai]

phaonica wrote...

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"

Poisoning Eamon rather undercuts the idea that it all took Loghain by surprise and he was just going with the flow at and after Ostagar.  It also is, in itself, an executable offense.