12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

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.

But an additional problem is that it's impossible to determine Loghain's motive for withdrawing and withdrawing when he did.  We have what Gaider tells us, but even this is not iron-clad.  I mean, even to add another layer to it, there is the plausible, ostensible reason Loghain is telling himself is why he's withdrawing, but that might only be a mask for the real reasons.  All of this is too murky to put down to simple explanations.  Even a "smart military man" is still just a man.

Modifié par Addai67, 16 septembre 2010 - 05:22 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
But an additional problem is that it's impossible to determine Loghain's motive for withdrawing and withdrawing when he did.  We have what Gaider tells us, but even this is not iron-clad.  I mean, even to add another layer to it, there is the plausible, ostensible reason Loghain is telling himself is why he's withdrawing, but that might only be a mask for the real reasons.  All of this is too murky to put down to simple explanations.  Even a "smart military man" is still just a man.

For me, what Gaider says is iron-clad out-game. In-game, sure you can argue that it's not clear and act on this lack of clarity. You could think that Loghain wanted power only. You would be wrong, but nothing in-game indicates otherwise except what he tells you and you don't have to believe him.

Loghain's comments before the battle and at RtO shows that his reason was because he thought the battle was lost. Whether you think he is rationalising it or if he sincerily believes it, that's up to you I guess. I think he sincerily believed that the battle was lost and that was his primary motive. That, in addition to fearing that the real threat is 4 Orlesian legions amassing at the border.   

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 septembre 2010 - 05:27 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

Elhanan wrote...

Loghain's wise retreat? We must have different cut-scenes and dialogue, as mine clearly indicate that the murderous traitor withdrew with some objection from his own officers.
Revisionist history does not seem to be limited to RL....

You have to step back from the typical "We can save the world if we just believe in it!" High Fantasy attitude and get realistic. A lot of people made excellent posts in this thread telling you exactly why Loghain's retreat was a good idea and basically saved Ferelden. In reality, you can't expect anyone to run into a whole army and kill everyone in their way, you know, your men can die too.

Don't make the typical DA player mistake and say that "LOL LOGHAIN IS BAD HE LEFT THE KING TROLOLOLOL". Take a step back, have an objective view at te whole issue and carefully decide on what position to take.

Modifié par FellowerOfOdin, 16 septembre 2010 - 05:57 .

[Zjarcal]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

You have to step back from the typical "We can save the world if we just believe in it!" High Fantasy attitude and get realistic. A lot of people made excellent posts in this thread telling you exactly why Loghain's retreat was a good idea and basically saved Ferelden. In reality, you can't expect anyone to run into a whole army and kill everyone in their way, you know, your men can die too.

Don't make the typical DA player mistake and say that "LOL LOGHAIN IS BAD HE LEFT THE KING TROLOLOLOL". Take a step back, have an objective view at te whole issue and carefully decide on what position to take.

This post lifts my spirit.

[Giggles_Manically]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Loghain's wise retreat? We must have different cut-scenes and dialogue, as mine clearly indicate that the murderous traitor withdrew with some objection from his own officers.
Revisionist history does not seem to be limited to RL....

You have to step back from the typical "We can save the world if we just believe in it!" High Fantasy attitude and get realistic. A lot of people made excellent posts in this thread telling you exactly why Loghain's retreat was a good idea and basically saved Ferelden. In reality, you can't expect anyone to run into a whole army and kill everyone in their way, you know, your men can die too.

Don't make the typical DA player mistake and say that "LOL LOGHAIN IS BAD HE LEFT THE KING TROLOLOLOL". Take a step back, have an objective view at te whole issue and carefully decide on what position to take.

You sir, are sodding awsome!

[blothulfur]

I might be being a bit dim here but even if they had won at Ostagar they still wouldn't have won in the long term because the Archdemon wasn't there was he, I mean the darkspawn would just keep boiling up in greater numbers from deep in the wilds. Then again Loghain doesn't know that or accept that it is a blight or so he says, what he really believes well thats debatable.

[CalJones]

You are quite right, sir...losing Ostagar would have been a setback for the darkspawn but Archie hadn't popped out of the Dead Trenches yet. There were thousands of darkspawn down there when you see him in the Deep Roads.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
But an additional problem is that it's impossible to determine Loghain's motive for withdrawing and withdrawing when he did.  We have what Gaider tells us, but even this is not iron-clad.  I mean, even to add another layer to it, there is the plausible, ostensible reason Loghain is telling himself is why he's withdrawing, but that might only be a mask for the real reasons.  All of this is too murky to put down to simple explanations.  Even a "smart military man" is still just a man.

For me, what Gaider says is iron-clad out-game. In-game, sure you can argue that it's not clear and act on this lack of clarity. You could think that Loghain wanted power only. You would be wrong, but nothing in-game indicates otherwise except what he tells you and you don't have to believe him.

Loghain's comments before the battle and at RtO shows that his reason was because he thought the battle was lost. Whether you think he is rationalising it or if he sincerily believes it, that's up to you I guess. I think he sincerily believed that the battle was lost and that was his primary motive. That, in addition to fearing that the real threat is 4 Orlesian legions amassing at the border.   

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Gaider has said that the only reason Loghain retreated was a tactical decision that the battle is lost.  He can't see the battlefield, after all.  If DG did say that, I'd like to see the quote.

Secondly, his ambiguity can be seen in the VO notes when he's questioned about whether he would have saved Cailan if he could have.  He says yes but the notes indicate he's lying, at least lying to himself.

[Addai]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

Loghain's wise retreat? We must have different cut-scenes and dialogue, as mine clearly indicate that the murderous traitor withdrew with some objection from his own officers.
Revisionist history does not seem to be limited to RL....

You have to step back from the typical "We can save the world if we just believe in it!" High Fantasy attitude and get realistic. A lot of people made excellent posts in this thread telling you exactly why Loghain's retreat was a good idea and basically saved Ferelden. In reality, you can't expect anyone to run into a whole army and kill everyone in their way, you know, your men can die too.

Don't make the typical DA player mistake and say that "LOL LOGHAIN IS BAD HE LEFT THE KING TROLOLOLOL". Take a step back, have an objective view at te whole issue and carefully decide on what position to take.

And you are making a supposition- based on what??- that this is the case.  So who's being "realistic"?

Modifié par Addai67, 16 septembre 2010 - 06:33 .

[Elhanan]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

You have to step back from the typical "We can save the world if we just believe in it!" High Fantasy attitude and get realistic. A lot of people made excellent posts in this thread telling you exactly why Loghain's retreat was a good idea and basically saved Ferelden. In reality, you can't expect anyone to run into a whole army and kill everyone in their way, you know, your men can die too.

Don't make the typical DA player mistake and say that "LOL LOGHAIN IS BAD HE LEFT THE KING TROLOLOLOL". Take a step back, have an objective view at te whole issue and carefully decide on what position to take.

By withdrawing, Loghain helped insure defeat at Ostagar. He left the majority of the army to die; not just the King and the Wardens. This is the reason he is trying to rebuild later. It was the Warden and his allies that saved Ferelden; not the selfish acts of Howe and the Orlesian hatred of Loghain. It is murder followed by attempts to cover up the war crimes, followed by further failed crimes including poisoning, hiring assassins, slavery of his own people, etc.

As for success, it may have not been probable; always is possible. I do not have to prove anything, as any opportunity was lost when one fails to try.

Again, I would rather follow a King like Alistair or Cailan than one tainted like Loghain. But then, I hold the Firefly crew mindset towards the philosophy from sadistic generals of the past, and prefer to look for advice elsewhere.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Gaider has said that the only reason Loghain retreated was a tactical decision that the battle is lost.  He can't see the battlefield, after all.  If DG did say that, I'd like to see the quote.

Secondly, his ambiguity can be seen in the VO notes when he's questioned about whether he would have saved Cailan if he could have.  He says yes but the notes indicate he's lying, at least lying to himself.

He can see part of it. Gaider said Loghain decided to retreat when the beacon was lit due to thinkign that the battle is lost and because he thinks Orlais is invading. It's thus not a power grap because Gaider said that Loghain would have tried to avoid Cailan's death if he could have.

I don't even recall us asking him that. Nor can I see the VO notes, so I can't judge. Keep in mind taht the VO notes are not definitive as many things were changed. I can see why he wouldnt' save Cailan if he had found out about his plan before the battle, but as it stands, I see no reason for Loghain to want Cailan dead and if he did, he would not have sacrificed his men to do so.  And this contradicts what Gaider said, that Loghain did not want Cailan to die.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 septembre 2010 - 06:52 .

[CalJones]

It makes no sense that Loghain would wish Cailan dead at that stage of the game. Cailan has been bugging the hell out of him, but his aim is to try and talk sense into him at that point (which is why he attempts to neutralise Eamon for a time). Given that Cailan is his best friend's son, and his daughter's claim to the throne is one of marriage, it's illogical for him to kill off Cailan.

(Obviously, if the plot to marry Cailan to Celene had come to light, and Loghain had discovered it, then he'd have a motive. But as others have pointed out, he could have had Cailan killed without losing most of the army in the process).

Consequently, Loghain's crime isn't that he murders Cailan - it's that he fails to save him. And from the "glorious" conversations we get early in the game, and the fact Cailan would rather booze it up with the wardens than talk strategy with Loghain, he doesn't exactly make himself easy to save.

[Elhanan]

No; it makes no sense, but he dood it. And then he tries to cover up the crime. I do not seek a motive; just judge and execute him quite often for his actions, or lack of them.

[nos_astra]

Hmm, VO notes can be cruel.

pre100_cailan.dlg - War Council
[pre100cr_loghain] Yes, Cailan. A glorious moment for us all.
VO note: Said a bit ominously. Loghain knows that the coming battle is going to mean Cailan's ceath when he betrays the king.

Exactly the vibe I always got from Loghain. I don't mind a bit of retconning to make him less two-dimensional, I even appreciate it, but seriously their initial plans for him are still so obvious in the game.

Edit: And that's a very far cry from he basically saved Ferelden!

Modifié par klarabella, 16 septembre 2010 - 07:46 .

[CalJones]

klarabella - yes, that's because they have legacy notes from earlier concepts. According to DG, that earlier concept had Loghain finding about Cailan's plans to dump Anora for Celene, which would doubtless give him reason to betray the king. But as it happens, the plot didn't make it into the finished game (other than as a muted hint in a DLC further down the line).

If DG says that Loghain didn't make his mind up to walk away until the beacon was lit, then that was what happened.

[blothulfur]

One mans xenophobic paranoid is anothers patriotic realist, the difference is their actions. Had loghain stayed behind and even died with cailan it would have changed everything because he would have overcome his demons and I think that hurts loghain more than anything, how distastefully "orlesian" he has had to become.

[phaonica]

CalJones wrote...

klarabella - yes, that's because they have legacy notes from earlier concepts. According to DG, that earlier concept had Loghain finding about Cailan's plans to dump Anora for Celene, which would doubtless give him reason to betray the king. But as it happens, the plot didn't make it into the finished game (other than as a muted hint in a DLC further down the line).
If DG says that Loghain didn't make his mind up to walk away until the beacon was lit, then that was what happened.

For me, even if I were to go by the VO notes, I think that as long as he decided to kill Cailan sometime after arriving at Ostagar, it doesn't matter to me when exactly he decided to have it happen. It seems like there would be more efficient, and less costly ways to kill Cailan. But I wasn't there making those decisions, so I don't know what his options looked like.

[Addai]

CalJones wrote...

klarabella - yes, that's because they have legacy notes from earlier concepts. According to DG, that earlier concept had Loghain finding about Cailan's plans to dump Anora for Celene, which would doubtless give him reason to betray the king. But as it happens, the plot didn't make it into the finished game (other than as a muted hint in a DLC further down the line).
If DG says that Loghain didn't make his mind up to walk away until the beacon was lit, then that was what happened.

I read the thread in question, but understood DG to be saying that he didn't make the final decision to leave until he saw the beacon. He had thought about it and even planned for the possibility but didn't really decide to do it until that moment.

Neither side can honestly say we know ironclad a) Loghain made a tactical decision period, or Loghain made a political decision and the tactical was just an excuse.

All this "if you're realistic you think this way" is very condescending.

[Sarah1281]

MariSkep wrote...

CalJones wrote...
If DG says that Loghain didn't make his mind up to walk away until the beacon was lit, then that was what happened.

This is gonna sound retarded but

Once a writer/artist creates something, it's not really up to them to tell me what it means. At that point it's out of their hands at that point. Whatever their original intentions, if they don't manifest themselves in their work, it's not a part of the narrative. 

That's not a fact. That's your Death of the Author viewpoint versus others' respect for Word of God.

[Zjarcal]

MariSkep wrote...

CalJones wrote...
If DG says that Loghain didn't make his mind up to walk away until the beacon was lit, then that was what happened.

This is gonna sound retarded but

Once a writer/artist creates something, it's not really up to them to tell me what it means. At that point it's out of their hands at that point. Whatever their original intentions, if they don't manifest themselves in their work, it's not a part of the narrative. 

And why shouldn't they be able to tell you what it means? People can interpret all they want but a writer's input into the interpretations we make is always welcome, especially if it helps clear things up.