12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Zjarcal]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

People dream about DA? lol How lucky can you be, I've always wanted to dream about Morrigan but alas, no.

Well, you can daydream all you want though! And if you want nightmares, you can check out the video that was posted in the Gush thread... it's guaranteed to give you nightmares!

[Monica21]

Sarah1281 wrote...

There really has to be an easier way to tell people these things rather than retyping them every page.

Keep the link to a previous post where you explain exactly that handy?

That would still require copying and pasting, and I'm lazy. I would just prefer that people actually read a thread before they toss in a previously-discussed opinion. Maybe expand on that, but just wandering in takes us back to square one.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yankee23 wrote...
I have been lurking in here for a while and I am going to briefly de-lurk to comment on this. Imo, much of the discussion seems to revolve around Loghain's plans and motives that were not spelled out in game. Many people consider their idea of Loghain from the books and the info stated by devs and Gaider in determining Loghains fate and there are others who are solely going by what they know (or don't know) from the game. Niether of these viewpoints are wrong. I think that is why these discussions seem to constantly circle and never get anywhere. Nobody wants to concede the other's right to either consider the extraneous info or not and then discuss each others choices within the context that they made them.

*goes back to lurking*

Indeed, it may seem like some of us are arguing metagaming reasons for sparing Loghain. I for one am not and I've always tried to make it clear that I believe there are valid reasons to want Loghain dead based on in-game knowledge and lack thereof (not an insult, just like in real life we can't know everything) or even full metagaming knowledge. Just like there are valid reasons for sparing him in-game and out.
 
Metagaming knowldege has no influence on my decision to spare Loghain and I say that because my canon playthrough where I spared Loghain was before I read the books or participated in the debate where Gaider posted his comments.

The main problem with those discussions is that we reach an impass, like you say about people talking about out-game "facts" and what we see in the game. And then people start justifying their decisions in-game, which I personally try as best as I can not to criticise anyways, mostly because I don't care how people choose to play their games.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 septembre 2010 - 04:12 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

People dream about DA? lol How lucky can you be, I've always wanted to dream about Morrigan but alas, no.

Well, you can daydream all you want though! And if you want nightmares, you can check out the video that was posted in the Gush thread... it's guaranteed to give you nightmares!

I only watched the first seconds and then Alt-ctrl-delete.

[Zjarcal]

Monica21 wrote...
That would still require copying and pasting, and I'm lazy. I would just prefer that people actually read a thread before they toss in a previously-discussed opinion. Maybe expand on that, but just wandering in takes us back to square one.

Sadly, that's too much work for some.

Perhaps we should use this every time someone starts trolling or posting nonsense:

[Monica21]

Zjarcal wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
That would still require copying and pasting, and I'm lazy. I would just prefer that people actually read a thread before they toss in a previously-discussed opinion. Maybe expand on that, but just wandering in takes us back to square one.

Sadly, that's too much work for some.

Perhaps we should use this every time someone starts trolling or posting nonsense:

I love that picture, and excellent idea!

[Elhanan]

Monica21 wrote...

Are we really going back to what Alistair thought he knew? He knew exactly as much as your PC did, which is nothing. He fought through the tower with you, lit the beacon, and got attacked and rescued by Flemeth. Both of you were, what, doing some sight-seeing from the top of the tower? The view from the tower might have been enough to see the battlefield, but we don't know that. We know that the king's troops won the previous battles which might have been what Alistair was talking about, but given word from the devs that the horde was larger than they anticipated and what we saw in the cutscene after the beacon was lit, it hardly seem like "winning." Especially considering their winning tactic involved Loghain's flank.

Simply because you do not care for the source does not make Alistair, Cauthrian, or the Warden's POV any less valid at judging the battlefield. Until Loghain withdrew, victory was still possible. Why we still play football games instead of letting the stats determine outcomes.

edit: Using phrases like "murderous traitor" and "murder and malice" could very well be considered trolling. Not much different from me going to the Alistair thread and calling him a whiny git but "a real romantic at heart."

Except murder and malice are factual terms in this case, I believe. While Loghain did not actually squeeze Cailan, placing him into the hand of the Ogre seems to mirror into the same kind of intended consequence that has King David guilty of slaying Uriah, so as to leave Bathsheba a widow.

Modifié par Elhanan, 16 septembre 2010 - 04:16 .

[Giggles_Manically]

The first time I saw the DR scene with Loghain I felt so horrible for him.



Just his face I mean. It looks like a sad puppy there. I do find it interesting that Loghain would chose soul death over Morri nookies.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Elhanan wrote...
Until Loghain withdrew, victory was still possible.

Prove it.

When the outcome is so uncertain, the smart military leader withdraws. Read Sun Tzu and Machiavelli's art of war.

We don't actually need to prove that the battle is unwinnable. The sole fact that the outcome is very uncertain (and strongly hinted at being a loss), makes Loghain's retreat a sound military move regardless of labels you choose to describe it with.

At the end of the day, I'll listen to the experienced general and certainly not you, no offense.

[Monica21]

Elhanan wrote...

Simply because you do not care for the source does not make Alistair, Cauthrian, or the Warden's POV any less valid at judging the battlefield. Until Loghain withdrew, victory was still possible. Why we still play football games instead of letting the stats determine outcomes.

Actually, the source is extremely unreliable, or have you never heard a policeman talk about how terrible eye-witness testimony is? It's not Alistair that I have problem with, it's that I don't think he could have seen enough of the battle for long enough to make such a judgment.

Perhaps you believe the battle was still winnable, but at what cost? Loghain might have ended up sacrificing the entire army at Ostagar, left Ferelden with no king, possibly died himself, and then you'd still have a Blight to defeat. What would have been the good in that? At least in football you don't actually have to worry about people dying.

Except murder and malice are factual terms in this case, I believe. While Loghain did not actually squeeze Cailan, placing him into the hand of the Ogre seems to mirror into the same kind of intended consequence that has King David guilty of slaying Uriah, so as to leave Bathsheba a widow.

No, it's not murder or malice. He tried to talk Cailan from the front lines, but David sent Uriah there. Loghain clearly did everything in his power to prevent Cailan from acting a fool and Cailan continued to disregard his General's advice.

[Giggles_Manically]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Elhanan wrote...
Until Loghain withdrew, victory was still possible.

Prove it.

When the outcome is so uncertain, the smart military leader withdraws. Read Sun Tzu and Machiavelli's art of war.

We don't actually need to prove that the battle is unwinnable. The sole fact that the outcome is very uncertain (and strongly hinted at being a loss), makes Loghain's retreat a sound military move regardless of labels you choose to describe it with.

At the end of the day, I'll listen to the experienced general and certainly not you, no offense.

KoP is right again.

You dont commit your forces to a possibility.

If he had lost all the army there and himself, and the king then Fereldan would have been royaly screwed.

[Monica21]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
When the outcome is so uncertain, the smart military leader withdraws. Read Sun Tzu and Machiavelli's art of war.

Indeed. What does he say? Something like "Never fight a battle unless you know you can win."

Modifié par Monica21, 16 septembre 2010 - 04:26 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Monica21 wrote...
Perhaps you believe the battle was still winnable, but at what cost? Loghain might have ended up sacrificing the entire army at Ostagar, left Ferelden with no king, possibly died himself, and then you'd still have a Blight to defeat. What would have been the good in that? At least in football you don't actually have to worry about people dying.

Indeed, on a strategic level, victory at Ostagar would have meant nothing and would certainly not have been decisive. At the very best, it would have been a pyyrrhic tactical victory and a strategic loss. At worst, a tactical and strategic disaster if Loghain went there.
 
Loghain already defeated the darkspawn in 3 battles and yet they still came in higher numbers each time. The darkspawn being defeated at Ostagar would not have reduced their numbers decisively (and we know that from the deep roads cutscenes that the Archdemon had ample of troops to spare). But would have cost so much Ferelden soldiers and the strategic outcome for Ferelden would have been in a worse shape. The darkspawn can defeat Ferelden through sheer attrition.

Oh and the football analogy that elhanan used is kind of....I want to avoid using negative terms but you probably can guess what I want to say.

[DragonRacer13]

Monica21 wrote...

"But what about the king..." is hardly an objection to the retreat, and Cauthrien doesn't count as "some of his officers" as she's only one person. Loghain is likely remembering West Hill and the promise he made to Maric. He also knows how unlikely it is that they can save Cailan and isn't willing to risk more men to try. Also, Loghain doesn't have angry villian face in that scene. He actually looks a bit sad there.

Oh, you missed him twirling a finger around one of the ends of his Snidely Whiplash handlebar moustache in that scene? You gotta be more observant, girl! 

Especially considering their winning tactic involved Loghain's flank.

Anything involving Loghain's flank is a winning tactic.

*pause*

Um, did I just say that out loud?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Monica21 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
When the outcome is so uncertain, the smart military leader withdraws. Read Sun Tzu and Machiavelli's art of war.

Indeed. What does he say? Something like "Never fight a battle unless you know you can win."

He says that the great military leader is the one who wins before getting into the fight (has everything to do with positioning, morale, ressource allocation...etc).

I forgot the exact words but it's something like: "Great military leaders assure victory before going to battle. Bad ones go to battle and hope they can assure victory."

[Zjarcal]

Monica21 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
When the outcome is so uncertain, the smart military leader withdraws. Read Sun Tzu and Machiavelli's art of war.

Indeed. What does he say? Something like "Never fight a battle unless you know you can win."

I think this is it:

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

EDIT: You'll have to forgive me if I say that I know that quote from Civilization IV and not from actually researching about Sun Tzu.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 16 septembre 2010 - 04:35 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Zjarcal wrote...
I think this is it:

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

EDIT: You'll have to forgive me if I say that I know that quote from Civilization IV and not from actually researching about Sun Tzu.

Yes, this is it!

I actually have a copy of Sun Tzu's Art of War right here *goes to search for it*.

[Giggles_Manically]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...
I think this is it:

"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."

EDIT: You'll have to forgive me if I say that I know that quote from Civilization IV and not from actually researching about Sun Tzu.

Yes, this is it!

I actually have a copy of Sun Tzu's Art of War right here *goes to search for it*.

Why am I not suprised at this?

Here are a few:
He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.

Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
The enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution.

The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.

[Wulfram]

Loghain's failure at Ostagar was that he forgot the cost of betrayal. He may have acted on sound military judgment, or through darker motives, but by quitting the field when he had promised support he fatally compromised his ability to lead.



Really, he should have stepped aside and let Anora lead, but in the event it seems his pride would not even allow him to offer a proper defense of his actions until the Warden forces him to it at the landsmeet.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...
The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.

This is Loghain.
This is not Cailan, who does the exact opposite. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...

Loghain's failure at Ostagar was that he forgot the cost of betrayal. He may have acted on sound military judgment, or through darker motives, but by quitting the field when he had promised support he fatally compromised his ability to lead.

Ostagar had little to do with it, if you use that as an argument, you lose points at the Landsmeet.

The reality is, the bannorn has always been a nuissance and the codex says that they sometimes fight amongst themselves over some trees. That's how petty they are. So when Loghain sadly wants to deal with them like they are troops, they refuse. That's the core reason, Ostagar was just the spark. "The civil war has brought many old grudges to a boil" - Master Ignacio.
Notice how the Civil war side quest had the banorn sergeant say that they don't take orders from Denerim (and he did not specify Loghain only). They actually think they are indepedent.

In fact, my vision for Ferelden would be to subdue the bannorn subtly and secure the dominance of the Coastlands. Ferelden cannot move fowards if it's at the whim of small banns ruling small acres of land who think they are important.  But this has to be done very subtly and via economic subserviance. Definately not what Loghain tried to pull off, even if militarily speaking he was kicking their asses.   

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 septembre 2010 - 05:02 .

[Wulfram]

Ostagar may have been a spark, but it was a necessary one.

[Giggles_Manically]

Sun Tzu also makes note of that as well I think.



He says that Politicans have to be diplomats, who are calm and thoughtful.

While Generals must be aggresive, assertive, and be willing to do whatever it takes to win.



He notes that the skill sets between the two dont mesh very well and that good generals should not be made into politicans since they try to force things without diplomacy, and that good politicans should not be generals since they lack the guts or force to actually fight very well.



Loghain is a good general, but a terrible politican.

While the bannorn can serve as a check against corrupt kings, I think it is really silly. Honestly a group of people who sit there and bicker like the assembly dosent help things.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...

Ostagar may have been a spark, but it was a necessary one.

Not necessarily. What can be argued as a necessary spark is Cailan dying without an heir, but even that does not guarantee a civil war since Ferelden can elect a non-Therein to the throne (and some seriously considered it and before the landsmeet most were skeptical of Alistair).

A major reason is Loghain not knowing how to deal with them and like Giggles says, he is a bad politician. The bannorn is a collection of self-aggrandising petty banns, but when untied with a common cause can become a severe nuissance.  Loghain gave them a reason to be united. That for me was his major mistake.  



 

[CalJones]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...
Really? That's strange, I finished the game thrice with Loghain dying at the landsmeet but never got the epilogue telling me that anyone remembers Loghain. Maybe another bugged ending, we already have enough of those.

Loghain's statue is only mentioned if Anora rules alone (or, I think, with a Cousland, possibly). Not if she marries Alistair, or if Alistair rules alone or with a Cousland. I would hazard a guess that Alistair might just object to a large statue of Loghain being built somewhere. 

If Loghain is executed, then the statue doesn't get many visitors but Anora leaves flowers there once a year.
If he slays the archdemon, the statue is built overlooking the Orlesian embassy, "watching it" according to the locals, and becomes a popular meeting spot. In time, his darker deeds are forgotten in favour of his more heroic ones.
I have to admit I like the favourable statue epilogue enough that, when I get Loghain to slay the archdemon, I let Anora stay single.