12857 réponses à ce sujet

[phaonica]

MariSkep wrote...

Loghain is 'bad' because he's a xenophobic paranoid with way to many issues to be in any position of authority where he has to set his views aside.

Maric depended on Loghain's intuition, and more often than not Loghain was right. Maric is not my favorite character in the world, but I don't think it was a stupid move to keep Loghain around in a position of influence.

I'm sure his passion served him well during the war with Orlais. But when it got to the point where he believed he alone could decide what was best for Ferelden he'd reached the point of megalomania. 

Who else should have been in charge? One might argue that *anyone* would have been better than Loghain, but I think that would be mostly in hindsight. Who didn't support the idea of accepting Orlesian reiforcements? I suppose in the view that suspicions against Orlais are purely paranoia, then yes, anyone else could have just let Orlais' armies come. To him, that's not an option. It's not megalomania that's driving him; who else is going to keep the Orlesians out?

I also don't think he's a megalomanic, because once he believes in the Warden, he yields his position to him/her. One probably couldn't determine his sincerity in that unless one chose to spare him, but given that I do find his yielding to be sincere.

[phaonica]

MariSkep wrote...

That's the point. If a writer can say 'this is what it is' then every passage that contradicts that point (regardless of how many there are) or some meaningful part of the story someone else discovered just became meaningless. Not to mention, if it's not in the story it's not in the story.

In the extreme, I might see your point. But the Word of God we're considering here is contradicting something that was in the VO notes (which already is outside-the-game information). I don't find DGs info about Loghain's decision to leave occuring right when the beacon was lit to contradict anything that is presented in the game.

[jpdipity]

phaonica wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

That's the point. If a writer can say 'this is what it is' then every passage that contradicts that point (regardless of how many there are) or some meaningful part of the story someone else discovered just became meaningless. Not to mention, if it's not in the story it's not in the story.

In the extreme, I might see your point. But the Word of God we're considering here is contradicting something that was in the VO notes (which already is outside-the-game information). I don't find DGs info about Loghain's decision to leave occuring right when the beacon was lit to contradict anything that is presented in the game.

Personally, I think it contradicts the tone and facial expressions projected by Loghain as he was leaving the War Council & the info we are told about Loghain's ability to see the battlefield which is in-the-game information.   Based on how Loghain talked at that moment while leaving the Council, I knew he was up to something nefarious.  I'm not sure how that scene could possibly be intrepreted any other way.

I finished the game and read both books and I firmly believed that Loghain planned to betray the King before lighting the beacon without a doubt.  I didn't even begin to re-consider it until I saw Gaider's comments here.  

I believe that Gaider's comments contradict the game when it comes to Loghain's intentions.  I think that Loghain's character and intent have likely changed throughout game development and we now have a hashed-up character that is open for a lot of player interpretation. 

Most importantly, most of Gaider's comments are scattered with things like "I think" or  it "is up to you" and "in my mind" which, IMO, means that Gaider wants the player to draw their own conclusions and that he does not consider himself God.  Of course, after I say that, Gaider will pop in here and say otherwise...

I've decided that I nor my PC Warden will ever know Loghain's true intent and I can only act on what is best for my PC in each game.  I personally, wouldn't prosecute him based on intent anyway.

[KnightofPhoenix]

jpdipity wrote...
Most importantly, most of Gaider's comments are scattered with things like "I think" or  it "is up to you" and "in my mind" which, IMO, means that Gaider wants the player to draw their own conclusions and that he does not consider himself God.  Of course, after I say that, Gaider will pop in here and say otherwise...

That's because he wants to make the distinction clear between out-game knowledge and in-game. Gaider saying "this is what happened" would be annoying if the game doesn't show it explictly and he also made it clear that he dislikes games doing this. So he doesn't want to force himself and be a jerk and say you were all wrong (unlike Lucas).

As is very typically Gaider like, all his comments are filled with "maybes", "I think" and "perhaps". That does not change the fact that his opinion on a character he created should not be ignored. So yes, Gaider is the word of God even if he doesn't want to impose it, as the game lends itself both ways. If he says that Loghain decided to leave when the beacon is lit, then that is out-game fact. This however should not affect your own game and perception, if you feel that in-game there is no evidence to support it (I think there is, but that's not the point).
 
So basically we come back to the same issue where people don't differentiate between out-game knowledge (where Gaider's words are definitice and factual) and between in-game knowledge (where Gaider's comments don't have to mean much if anythign at all).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 septembre 2010 - 10:12 .

[Persephone]

Monica21 wrote...

KaiLyn wrote...

Frankly, Loghain's comment at the end of the War Council with Duncan and Cailan indicated to me that he was already up to something - "Yes, your majesty - a grand day for us all." He had already told Cailan not to be up front in the battle so felt justified in his intention to withdraw at that point; he seemed to have that withdraw planned before the battle began and was envisioning his rise to power already.

He knew he might have to withdraw. Every general knows that. It's been confirmed by Gaider that Loghain didn't make the decision to retreat before the beacon was lit. It's also been confirmed that the horde was larger. Yes, he tried to keep Cailan off the front lines, and yes, Cailan stupidly insisted on doing so.

What Loghain had planned for was a possible confrontation with Cailan. His "rise to power" included putting his daughter on the throne, not himself.

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

And this confrontation also was the reason to have Eamon sedated. Eamon, who had been working against the Queen and her father for Maker knows how long. Speaking so of one's queen as he does in that letter is very close to treason. (Unless the king in question is Henry VIII) I so would have liked to see it. Because nobody shuts a person up like Loggy does.

[Yankee23]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jpdipity wrote...
Most importantly, most of Gaider's comments are scattered with things like "I think" or  it "is up to you" and "in my mind" which, IMO, means that Gaider wants the player to draw their own conclusions and that he does not consider himself God.  Of course, after I say that, Gaider will pop in here and say otherwise...

That's because he wants to make the distinction clear between out-game knowledge and in-game. Gaider saying "this is what happened" would be annoying if the game doesn't show it explictly and he also made it clear that he dislikes games doing this. So he doesn't want to force himself and be a jerk and say you were all wrong (unlike Lucas).

As is very typically Gaider like, all his comments are filled with "maybes", "I think" and "perhaps". That does not change the fact that his opinion on a character he created should not be ignored. So yes, Gaider is the word of God even if he doesn't want to impose it, as the game lends itself both ways. If he says that Loghain decided to leave when the beacon is lit, then that is out-game fact. This however should not affect your own game and perception, if you feel that in-game there is no evidence to support it (I think there is, but that's not the point).
 
So basically we come back to the same issue where people don't differentiate between out-game knowledge (where Gaider's words are definitice and factual) and between in-game knowledge (where Gaider's comments don't have to mean much if anythign at all).

This is the point I was trying to make earlier. In general , these discussions can't seem to get past the point of what information is "allowed" to be used when choosing what to do with Loghain. It's all valid, people. When I choose to execute Loghain on my first playthough not knowing there were books and never hearing the name Gaider, I was not wrong to do so and neither is anyone who may metagame and take it all into account. Post what you did and why and discuss it, not whether it was wrong because Gaider said X or that you can't use what Gaider said because it was not spelled out in game.

Modifié par Yankee23, 16 septembre 2010 - 10:39 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yankee23 wrote...
This is the point I was trying to make earlier. In general , these discussions can't seem to get past the point of what information is "allowed" to be used when choosing what to do with Loghain. It's all valid, people. When I choose to execute Loghain on my first playthough not knowing there were books and never hearing the name Gaider, I was not wrong to do so and neither is anyone who may metagame and take it all into account. Post what you did and why and discuss it, not whether it was wrong because Gaider said X or that you can't use what Gaider said because it was not spelled out in game.

I didn't metagame in my canon playthrough (didn't read books, Gaider didnt' say anything) and it made perfect sense for me to spare Loghain. You don't need to metagame to find good reasons to spare him or think along the lines of what Gaider said (I had always argued what I am arguing now before Gaider said anything. He just confirmed my beliefs), nor do you need metagaming knowledge to kill him. There are valid reasons to do either choice using both/ either in and / or out game reasons.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 septembre 2010 - 10:46 .

[Yankee23]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yankee23 wrote...
This is the point I was trying to make earlier. In general , these discussions can't seem to get past the point of what information is "allowed" to be used when choosing what to do with Loghain. It's all valid, people. When I choose to execute Loghain on my first playthough not knowing there were books and never hearing the name Gaider, I was not wrong to do so and neither is anyone who may metagame and take it all into account. Post what you did and why and discuss it, not whether it was wrong because Gaider said X or that you can't use what Gaider said because it was not spelled out in game.

I didn't metagame in my canon playthrough (didn't read books, Gaider didnt' say anything) and it made perfect sense for me to spare Loghain. You don't need to metagame to find good reasons to spare him or think along the lines of what Gaider said (I had always argued what I am arguing now before Gaider said anything. He just confirmed my beliefs), nor do you need metagaming knowledge kill him. There are valid reasons to do either choice using both in and out game reasons.

Agreed. My post wasn't directed at you personally, it just seemed appropriate to quote you since it seems as if we agree that it is valid for everyone to use whatever infomation  they feel is relevant to make their choices.

Modifié par Yankee23, 16 septembre 2010 - 10:53 .

[Addai]

Persephone wrote...

And this confrontation also was the reason to have Eamon sedated. Eamon, who had been working against the Queen and her father for Maker knows how long. Speaking so of one's queen as he does in that letter is very close to treason. (Unless the king in question is Henry VIII) I so would have liked to see it. Because nobody shuts a person up like Loggy does.

"Sedated"?  You make it sound almost quaint, like he sent Eamon to a beach vacation in Rivain.

Who knows, maybe Rivaini pirate kidnap was Plan B in case "shady apostate infiltration" didn't work.

Cailan was the king, Anora was queen consort- not queen regnant- and a mild suggestion that Cailan consider setitng her aside is hardly treason.  And whatever you think of it, it hardly comes up to the level of sending someone to poison a political rival.

Modifié par Addai67, 16 septembre 2010 - 10:56 .

[Persephone]

Addai67 wrote...

Persephone wrote...

And this confrontation also was the reason to have Eamon sedated. Eamon, who had been working against the Queen and her father for Maker knows how long. Speaking so of one's queen as he does in that letter is very close to treason. (Unless the king in question is Henry VIII) I so would have liked to see it. Because nobody shuts a person up like Loggy does.

"Sedated"?  You make it sound almost quaint, like he sent Eamon to a beach vacation in Rivain.

Who knows, maybe Rivaini pirate kidnap was Plan B in case "shady apostate infiltration" didn't work.

Cailan was the king, Anora was queen consort- not queen regnant- and a mild suggestion that Cailan consider setitng her aside is hardly treason.  And whatever you think of it, it hardly comes up to the level of sending someone to poison a political rival.

He was sedated. Comatose.
Cailan was the king. He wore the crown prettily. Anora ruled for years. Not to speak of Eamon's idiocy when it comes to suggesting Celene instead of Anora. (Antagonizing Teyrn Loghain IS a bad idea) Whether it's a queen regnant or consort, setting an efficient, loyal wife aside for a snake from Orlais........much worse than what Eamon got. In the end. And considering what it entails, selling out your country to Orlais = treason

[KnightofPhoenix]

To be fair, noithing indicates Eamon telling Cailan to go for Celene. Eamon wanted Cailan to try someone else to get an heir (a sentiment I think Loghain would have shared eventually if no heirs were produced). That does not necessarily mean he wanted Cailan to marry Celene. I am not saying it's impossible, Eamon could have wanted this for some reason. But we have no evidence to say with absolute certainty whether he wanted this specific marriage or not.

[Costin_Razvan]

Anora was queen consort- not queen regnant- and a mild suggestion that Cailan consider setitng her aside is hardly treason.

A mild suggestion? Eamon flat out states that Cailan should abandon Anora for another wife.

[Dean_the_Young]

And how is that treason in the least?

[Zjarcal]

MariSkep wrote...

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Anora was queen consort- not queen regnant- and a mild suggestion that Cailan consider setitng her aside is hardly treason.

A mild suggestion? Eamon flat out states that Cailan should abandon Anora for another wife.

He's looking out for his nephew. Bros before hos, yo!

I ain't saying she's a gold digger...

Ah right, Anora is a ho. How enlightening.

[Persephone]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And how is that treason in the least?

The queen is above the jurisdiction of her husband's vassals. Said vassals OWE her respect and loyalty, in most medieval countries they swore oaths to uphold her honor after her coronation. Since Anora committed no crime and Eamon is not her equal (That would be the king and NO ONE else) , Eamon is plotting against an innocent woman. Whose only crime is not having been a royal baby machine yet. I don't know how the chantry views such a callous suggestion. I only know that I despise Eamon for it. As for "Bros Before Hos" , Anora is his wife, a loyal, efficient, respected wife who did all of Cailan's work so he could play king. It drives me mad to see women treated like this.

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

To be fair, noithing indicates Eamon telling Cailan to go for Celene. Eamon wanted Cailan to try someone else to get an heir (a sentiment I think Loghain would have shared eventually if no heirs were produced). That does not necessarily mean he wanted Cailan to marry Celene. I am not saying it's impossible, Eamon could have wanted this for some reason. But we have no evidence to say with absolute certainty whether he wanted this specific marriage or not.

I remember reading somewhere that Loghain having Eamon sedated is a left over of an axed quest involving Celene coming to Denerim and Eamon pushing for a marriage between them. Hence Loghain's anger re: Eamon.

[Sarah1281]

Persephone wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

To be fair, noithing indicates Eamon telling Cailan to go for Celene. Eamon wanted Cailan to try someone else to get an heir (a sentiment I think Loghain would have shared eventually if no heirs were produced). That does not necessarily mean he wanted Cailan to marry Celene. I am not saying it's impossible, Eamon could have wanted this for some reason. But we have no evidence to say with absolute certainty whether he wanted this specific marriage or not.

I remember reading somewhere that Loghain having Eamon sedated is a left over of an axed quest involving Celene coming to Denerim and Eamon pushing for a marriage between them. Hence Loghain's anger re: Eamon.

Yes but the current in-game state of affairs is that Loghain found out about Cailan's marriage plans during RtO so, as Celene didn't get a chance to make it to Ferelden and Eamon's recent letter indicates he knows nothing about the plan, I'm going to assume that Eamon knows nothing about the plan.

[KnightofPhoenix]

What Sarah says. The original idea is not present in this incarnation of the game, so I am not going to judge Eamon on something he didn't do in the game.

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

What Sarah says. The original idea is not present in this incarnation of the game, so I am not going to judge Eamon on something he didn't do in the game.

It's hinted hat (Not very subtly) in RTO. Esp. if you take Loghain along.

[TJPags]

Persephone wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And how is that treason in the least?

The queen is above the jurisdiction of her husband's vassals. Said vassals OWE her respect and loyalty, in most medieval countries they swore oaths to uphold her honor after her coronation. Since Anora committed no crime and Eamon is not her equal (That would be the king and NO ONE else) , Eamon is plotting against an innocent woman. Whose only crime is not having been a royal baby machine yet. I don't know how the chantry views such a callous suggestion. I only know that I despise Eamon for it. As for "Bros Before Hos" , Anora is his wife, a loyal, efficient, respected wife who did all of Cailan's work so he could play king. It drives me mad to see women treated like this.

So, one has to have equal loyalty to king AND his wife?  What if one says to go here, and the other says, go there . . . who do you obey?

Anyway, you may not like it - I don't either - but part of the job of a consort - man or woman - is to help the sovereign get an heir . . for a woman, that means having a baby.  Part of a monarch's job is to ensure a smooth succession, meaning, have a kid.  So, in that light, Anora was not performing her role as consort, and Eamon is within his rights to mention that to Caillan.

Yes, it could equally be Caillan's fault.  But, again, in this kind of society, one looks first at the woman, especially if she is the consort, not the title holder.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

What Sarah says. The original idea is not present in this incarnation of the game, so I am not going to judge Eamon on something he didn't do in the game.

It's hinted hat (Not very subtly) in RTO. Esp. if you take Loghain along.

No, it's not. It's in fact hinted that Eamon had no idea otherwise he would not have once again tried to convince Cailan to do it. Eamon's letter advises Cailan to leave Anora and marry someone else. Nowhere does it have Eamon telling Cailan to marry Celene, that's Cailan's plan.
 
And Loghain did not say anything about Eamon. At all.

[phaonica]

jpdipity wrote...

phaonica wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

That's the point. If a writer can say 'this is what it is' then every passage that contradicts that point (regardless of how many there are) or some meaningful part of the story someone else discovered just became meaningless. Not to mention, if it's not in the story it's not in the story.

In the extreme, I might see your point. But the Word of God we're considering here is contradicting something that was in the VO notes (which already is outside-the-game information). I don't find DGs info about Loghain's decision to leave occuring right when the beacon was lit to contradict anything that is presented in the game.

Personally, I think it contradicts the tone and facial expressions projected by Loghain as he was leaving the War Council & the info we are told about Loghain's ability to see the battlefield which is in-the-game information.   Based on how Loghain talked at that moment while leaving the Council, I knew he was up to something nefarious.  I'm not sure how that scene could possibly be intrepreted any other way.

It's true that even the first time I saw that scene, I thought to myself "he's up to something, and it doesn't sound good".  However, I think that he could have considered the decision and second guessed and reconsidered and whatever all the way up to the beacon being lit when he took action. His tone and body language at the end of the war council could still be presented the same way even if he was still considering and reconsidering.

[Persephone]

Before I say anything else:

I found this on YOUTUBE, is this for REAL? An unused Alistair/Loghain conversation?

www.youtube.com/watch

[phaonica]

Persephone wrote...

Before I say anything else:

I found this on YOUTUBE, is this for REAL? An unused Alistair/Loghain conversation?

www.youtube.com/watch

Huh. I've never seen those before. I don't remember finding those sound files anywhere, either...