295 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

Here's one I never really did get a good explanation for -



If Loghain could see the battlefield well enough to know that charging when the beacon was actually lit was useless, and also to know whether to tell them to light the beacon or not (remember, Gaider apprently said that Uldred and Loghain's men were to wait while Loghain decided what to do, ie light the beacon as planned and charge, or not), then why did they NEED a beacon in the first place?



Because this really argues, to me, that Loghain could NOT see the battlefield well, And if that is true, then the argument that he KNEW the battle was lost seem to lose steam.



Anyone?

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
Because this really argues, to me, that Loghain could NOT see the battlefield well, And if that is true, then the argument that he KNEW the battle was lost seem to lose steam.

Anyone?

A- no one is arguing that Loghain could see the battlefield well to know exactly what is going on. What we do know is that Loghain could see enough of it to know that the darkspawn are much more numerous than expected.

B- Linking it to point A, Loghain can still discern that the battle is most probably lost or highly risky if we take into account time. If the darkspawn are more numerous than expected, the frontline, or the Sickle, might fall earlier than expected and the flanking attack may not have enough numbers to be able to charge against those numbers adequately.  So Loghain can still deduce that if the beacon takes too much time (which is probably what did happen), then the opportunity is lost. The flanking attack can't work if the core is already broken. Sure enough, Cailan dies a few minutes after the beacon is lit.

So him seeing the darkspawn being more numerous than expected and the beacon being lit late, are enough to make him severily doubt. Retreating is thus the safest option.
No one is saying that he knew it was lost, no one knows. It's that he believed that it was lost and with good reason.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 octobre 2010 - 11:47 .

[TJPags]

Maybe I should restate this.



A) There was a beacon in the Tower of Ishal, to signal Loghain when to attack.

The Tower is the highest point at Ostagar, likely chosen for that reason, as a beacon from there could be seen from almost anywhere.

C) Caillan, on the battlefield, was to signal theose in the Tower to light the Beacon.

D) As I understand it, DG has said that Loghain wanted his men and/or Uldred in the Tower, because he was still deciding whether to charge as planned or not, and he was going to decide whether to tell them to light the Beacon on Caillan's signal, or not.

E) If Loghain was able to see Caillan's signal to light the beacon, why do they need the Beacon? (And D seems to suggest this, or how else would he know to signal Uldred NOT to light the Beacon as ordered?)

F) If he could see enough of the battlefield to make a tactical decision about whether to light the Beacon or not, why does he need a Beacon?



The argument here is that, Loghain could see enough to know that the battle couldn't be won - he would see the darkspawn were larger then expected, could see Caillan's line not holding, and knew - or thought - that he couldn't win.



If he could see that much, what need is there for a Beacon in the first place? It seems to me, either he could see the battle - in which case there's no need for a Beacon - or he couldn't, which renders his opinion on whether he could win the battle or not highly suspect.

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
Who says that tower isn't designed to observe the battlefield, or that one could "barely see the battlefield properly" from it's vantage point?

Because it was designed to spot the wilders from afar (dust, torches..etc). Judging from its height, I highly doubt you can see the battlefield properly and that's not its purpose, otherwise you wouldnt' need a signal to light the beacon, you can decide when the perfect time is when you are up there.

Even if it was designed to see wilders coming out of the forest from afar that doesn't mean it can't see the battefield. The tower is right there in the scene where the arrows are falling on the darkspawn charge. I'm pretty sure the warden or Alistair could have gotten a decent view.

I doubt the King or Loghain would want the guy manning the beacon to judge for himself when to give the signal for Loghain to attack. The reason the Warden has to wait for a signal from the King is so someone in charge is giving the signal.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Regardless, you were there for a few minutes only and I'd hardly call that enough to discern the battlefield

Obviously many of us disagree.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That's true. The point is, there were other views of the battlefield at Ostagar (obscured or not) and the other characters in the game who have opinions on Loghain's actions that don't agree with his ought not to be dismissed out of hand because they're recruits, inexperienced, or biased (which Loghain himself obviously is as well).

When presented as factual evidence, they can and should be dismissed. As hints and opinions? Sure, you can take them into account if you want. 

If having an opinion on the battle is to be judged as non-factual because it doesn't agree with Loghain's, well, that is just a
circular argument to justify Loghain's point of view. As far as the battle of Ostagar goes, we're all just evaluating everyone's opinion and perception of events.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Irrespective of the fact that we cannot know for certain whether the battle could or not could not have been won, the sheer uncertainty alone is enough to justify Loghain's retreat.

I don't think "uncertainty" really is a good reason to retreat.

Modifié par Obadiah, 06 octobre 2010 - 12:06 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
D) As I understand it, DG has said that Loghain wanted his men and/or Uldred in the Tower, because he was still deciding whether to charge as planned or not, and he was going to decide whether to tell them to light the Beacon on Caillan's signal, or not.
E) If Loghain was able to see Caillan's signal to light the beacon, why do they need the Beacon? (And D seems to suggest this, or how else would he know to signal Uldred NOT to light the Beacon as ordered?

Yes, this is inconsistent. I have no idea how he was planing to make Uldred know. Perhaps there was a different signal in mind had Uldred been there? Maybe he would have sent a runner? I don't know. 

TJPags wrote...
If he could see that much, what need is there for a Beacon in the first place? It seems to me, either he could see the battle - in which case there's no need for a Beacon - or he couldn't, which renders his opinion on whether he could win the battle or not highly suspect

Not realy, like I said, he can still believe with strong enough reason taht the battle can't be won even if he doesn't have a clear view of the battlefiled because he saw there were a lot more darkspawn than he planned for and because he could feel taht the beacon was lit too late. The beacon is supposed to be lit when the darkspawn are engaged in that narrow path and it shouldn't take that long.

If there was indeed no need for the beacon at all, then  Loghain could see the battle perfectly (which woudl contradict what the wrriters have said) and thus his judgement would be even more solid and the beacon was just there just so that Loghain could prevent its lighting to justify his retreat. That hwoever, woudl also contradict what the writers have said. Loghain was definitely waiting for the beacon to be lit.  

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
D) As I understand it, DG has said that Loghain wanted his men and/or Uldred in the Tower, because he was still deciding whether to charge as planned or not, and he was going to decide whether to tell them to light the Beacon on Caillan's signal, or not.
E) If Loghain was able to see Caillan's signal to light the beacon, why do they need the Beacon? (And D seems to suggest this, or how else would he know to signal Uldred NOT to light the Beacon as ordered?

Yes, this is inconsistent. I have no idea how he was planing to make Uldred know. Perhaps there was a different signal in mind had Uldred been there? Maybe he would have sent a runner? I don't know. 

TJPags wrote...
If he could see that much, what need is there for a Beacon in the first place? It seems to me, either he could see the battle - in which case there's no need for a Beacon - or he couldn't, which renders his opinion on whether he could win the battle or not highly suspect

Not realy, like I said, he can still believe with strong enough reason taht the battle can't be won even if he doesn't have a clear view of the battlefiled because he saw there were a lot more darkspawn than he planned for and because he could feel taht the beacon was lit too late. The beacon is supposed to be lit when the darkspawn are engaged in that narrow path and it shouldn't take that long.

If there was indeed no need for the beacon at all, then  Loghain could see the battle perfectly (which woudl contradict what the wrriters have said) and thus his judgement would be even more solid and the beacon was just there just so that Loghain could prevent its lighting to justify his retreat. That hwoever, woudl also contradict what the writers have said. Loghain was definitely waiting for the beacon to be lit.  

How can you reconcile the inconsistency then?  Clearly, he had to be able to see enough to let Uldred know what to do, or what Gaider said is invalid.

And if all he could really see was that there were more darkspawn then anticipated, then his opinion is no more valid then that of Wynne, Alistair, Flemeth, the guard, and my Warden, all of whom are faulted for either not having a good view, or not having enough experience.  Loghain's experience can't possibly mean as much if he doesn't have all the facts, can it?

[KnightofPhoenix]

I doubt the King or Loghain would want the guy manning the beacon to judge for himself when to give the signal for Loghain to attack. The reason the Warden has to wait for a signal from the King is so someone in charge is
giving the signal.

They could have had a captain there in charge.
If the beacon is so vital, then having one there who knows what he is doing, could have lit the beacon without needing a signal. The beacon was suppsoed to be lit as soon as the darkspawn army is engaged in the narrow path. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

Obviously many of us disagree.

And likely forever would. I can play the same game and say I saw the battlefield properly and discerned that the battle was lost. Prove me wrong. Yes, not much of an argument.

If having an opinion on the battle is to be judged as non-factual because it doesn't agree with Loghain's, well, that is just a circular argument to justify Loghain's point of view. As far as the battle of Ostagar goes, we're all just evaluating everyone's opinion and perception of events.

And no where did I say that Loghain's opinion is factual evidence. I said what he says about his own motives on how he left the battle, is more objective than what those who don't know him accuse him of.
And the fact that Loghain has more experience and which is why he is the general and they are soldiers.

I don't think "uncertainty" really is a good reason to retreat.

Sun Tzu disagrees.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 octobre 2010 - 12:14 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
How can you reconcile the inconsistency then?  Clearly, he had to be able to see enough to let Uldred know what to do, or what Gaider said is invalid.

Or not explained properly. Ask him.
Fact is, Loghain did not insist on Uldred being there and fact is, Loghain wanted to charge and join the battle until the beacon was lit. So he was not adamant about it.

TJPags wrote...
And if all he could really see was that there were more darkspawn then anticipated, then his opinion is no more valid then that of Wynne, Alistair, Flemeth, the guard, and my Warden, all of whom are faulted for either not having a good view, or not having enough experience.  Loghain's experience can't possibly mean as much if he doesn't have all the facts, can it?

He obviously doesn't have all the facts, but he did see that there are more darkspawn and that the beacon took too long. He doesn't know, and he feels that the battle is lost. So he leaves.
Because he has an army under his command and they are his responsability, if he throws them to ruin. The others you mention don't and it's easy to blame the one who has the responsabiluty that you don't.

[TJPags]

Can Loghain really be objective about his own motives?



Can ANYone really be objective about their own motives?



I think by definition that HAS to be subjective.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...

Can Loghain really be objective about his own motives?

Can ANYone really be objective about their own motives?

I think by definition that HAS to be subjective.

You're right. Let me rephrase it.

Loghain is a better source of discerning his own motives, then people who don';t know him.
Of course if you don't believe him, then that won't matter.
Fact is, Loghain says that he retreated because he felt the battle was lost and not for any other reason.

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
How can you reconcile the inconsistency then?  Clearly, he had to be able to see enough to let Uldred know what to do, or what Gaider said is invalid.

Or not explained properly. Ask him.
Fact is, Loghain did not insist on Uldred being there and fact is, Loghain wanted to charge and join the battle until the beacon was lit. So he was not adamant about it.

TJPags wrote...
And if all he could really see was that there were more darkspawn then anticipated, then his opinion is no more valid then that of Wynne, Alistair, Flemeth, the guard, and my Warden, all of whom are faulted for either not having a good view, or not having enough experience.  Loghain's experience can't possibly mean as much if he doesn't have all the facts, can it?

He obviously doesn't have all the facts, but he did see that there are more darkspawn and that the beacon took too long. He doesn't know, and he feels that the battle is lost. So he leaves.
Because he has an army under his command and they are his responsability, if he throws them to ruin. The others you mention don't and it's easy to blame the one who has the responsabiluty that you don't.

If he only FEELS the battle is lost, based on incomplete evidence, rather than KNOWING it is lost, then he's acting based on opinion, not fact.  If he's acting on opinion only, then his motives for forming that opinion come into question.  And, the opinion of others HAVE to be given equal weight. 

If not based on fact, then ALL opinions should be given equal weight, judged on the credibility of the person stating the opinion, and with close examination of their motives which may form or influence that opinion.

Also - did he actually see there were more darkspawn?  I believed that to be something Gaider said, not something that Loghain said.
Same for the beacon taking too long - how does he know that?  Based only on his opinion of the timing?

Finally - I'd be happy to ask David Gaider.  He's welcome to answer these questions, as I'd enjoy discussing it with him.  He doesn't seem to post in this section, though - or at least, hasn't done so lately.

[Zaros]

I killed him.

He put my Warden through hell for about 2 years, that bastard had to go down.

Modifié par Zaros, 06 octobre 2010 - 12:24 .

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Can Loghain really be objective about his own motives?

Can ANYone really be objective about their own motives?

I think by definition that HAS to be subjective.

You're right. Let me rephrase it.

Loghain is a better source of discerning his own motives, then people who don';t know him.
Of course if you don't believe him, then that won't matter.
Fact is, Loghain says that he retreated because he felt the battle was lost and not for any other reason.

I'll concede he's a better judge of his motives then others, to an extent, anyway - he's certainly a much better judge of what they actually ARE then anyone else.

At the moment, it's not about believing him or not.  I'm trying to logically examine his claims, his actions, and his motivations, not get into a "I believe him" v "well I don't" issue.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
If he only FEELS the battle is lost, based on incomplete evidence, rather than KNOWING it is lost, then he's acting based on opinion, not fact.  If he's acting on opinion only, then his motives for forming that opinion come into question.  And, the opinion of others HAVE to be given equal weight.  .

No, they don't, depends entirely on what they were seeing and their experience. An experienced man can discern from events things that a non-experienced person can't.

And when does anyone KNOW that a battle is lost?
He feels it and when a general is not confidant in victory, he retreats. Pure and simple.
Motive have little to do with coming up with conclusions of what you are seeing. Could be, but no necessary corolation.

TJPags wrote...
If not based on fact, then ALL opinions should be given equal weight, judged on the credibility of the person stating the opinion, and with close examination of their motives which may form or influence that opinion..

Loghain as a general and a master tactician is more credible.
Loghain states his motives. You choose to believe him or not.

TJPags wrote...
Also - did he actually see there were more darkspawn?  I believed that to be something Gaider said, not something that Loghain said.
Same for the beacon taking too long - how does he know that?  Based only on his opinion of the timing?.

Gaider said Loghain knew about the numbers.
Because the core can't wisthand the charge for long. If they collapse the entire flanking is useless.
Also, Duncan too seem to have a sense of timing.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 octobre 2010 - 12:28 .

[Monica21]

Okay, this is crude, but I made a picture of what I think was happening at Ostagar:



Loghain's forces would have had to have been farther up the valley to be in any position to flank, in addition to being in cover so the darkspawn don't see them. From what we see of Ostagar both when we arrive and during the battle, we see lots of trees. Trees hide vision.

When you're crossing the bridge, you see this: 



Darkspawn are still entering the valley. Loghain is probably in position to see the incoming darkspawn but too far to see the battlefield.

Loghain knows the numbers of the king's forces, so he can make a judgment  based on his position to be able to see the entering darkspawn. He may have even risked being sandwiched if the darkspawn had still been entering the valley. Combine that with the late beacon, and you have a very solid reason for retreat.

Modifié par Monica21, 06 octobre 2010 - 12:33 .

[Sarah1281]

Zaros wrote...

I killed him.

He put my Warden through hell for about 2 years, that bastard had to go down.

Loghain started the Blight and personally did whatever it was that forced you into the Wardens so you had to handle it? That bastard!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Great post Monica. This is linked to Loghain seeing that the darkspawn are much more numerous than was expected.

[Monica21]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Great post Monica. This is linked to Loghain seeing that the darkspawn are much more numerous than was expected.

My liege lord approves! Squeee!!! *descends into coughing fit*

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
If he only FEELS the battle is lost, based on incomplete evidence, rather than KNOWING it is lost, then he's acting based on opinion, not fact.  If he's acting on opinion only, then his motives for forming that opinion come into question.  And, the opinion of others HAVE to be given equal weight.  .

No, they don't, depends entirely on what they were seeing and their experience. An experienced man can discern from events things that a non-experienced person can't.

And when does anyone KNOW that a battle is lost?
He feels it and when a general is not confidant in victory, he retreats. Pure and simple.
Motive have little to do with coming up with conclusions of what you are seeing. Could be, but no necessary corolation.

TJPags wrote...
If not based on fact, then ALL opinions should be given equal weight, judged on the credibility of the person stating the opinion, and with close examination of their motives which may form or influence that opinion..

Loghain as a general and a master tactician is more credible.
Loghain states his motives. You choose to believe him or not.

TJPags wrote...
Also - did he actually see there were more darkspawn?  I believed that to be something Gaider said, not something that Loghain said.
Same for the beacon taking too long - how does he know that?  Based only on his opinion of the timing?.

Gaider said Loghain knew about the numbers.
Because the core can't wisthand the charge for long. If they collapse the entire flanking is useless.
Also, Duncan too seem to have a sense of timing.

We've just established that all Loghain could see was that there were more darkspawn then expected.  That alone can in no way allow him to decide objectively the battle was unwinnable, no matter his experience.  He acts based on his opinion - as such, yes, his motives MUST be examined.  When we're looking at opinion, not fact, you have to examine motives, both the motive for what was actually done, and the motive for what the person claims they did.  That's logic.

As example - fact, two cars had an accident at an intersection.  Fact, both drivers say they had a green light.  Fact, the light was working properly, and was never green for both sides.  To determine who to believe, you HAVE to examine the motive of each driver for, first, entering the intersection when they did, and second, for saying they had a green light.  The motives for each may be different (i.e., I was in a rush is my motive for entering the intersection when I did, and not wanting to admit I went through a red light is my motive for saying the light was green)

If he knew when the charge SHOULD have taken place, and could tell that from his vantage, again, why the beacon? 

What timing does Duncan have?  We only see him in the cutscene right after Caillans death, which comes AFTER the beacon is lit, when he looks up and sees the beacon.  We never see him look up before that, he never says anything about it being lit too late.  How is any of that relevant to this discussion?

[TJPags]

@ Monica - now, see, THAT helps me. That explains a lot of what I was asking about. Thank you.



It still leaves how he knew the beacon was lit too late, and also, how he was going to make the decision to signal Uldred to light it or not.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
We've just established that all Loghain could see was that there were more darkspawn then expected.  That alone can in no way allow him to decide objectively the battle was unwinnable, no matter his experience.  He acts based on his opinion - as such, yes, his motives MUST be examined.  When we're looking at opinion, not fact, you have to examine motives, both the motive for what was actually done, and the motive for what the person claims they did.  That's logic.

Yes, it does.
If you plan to fight 10 000 men and then your enemy shows up with twice that number, then you can't possible expect your plan to work as was intended. Not to mention taht Loghain's entire plan betted on the darkspawn being trapped in the valley. If they have the numbers to avoid that, the entire plan is ruined. That alone is enough to make you severily doubt. 

About motives. Ok, like I said, he tells you his motives and Gaider said that he wanted to fight, but chose not too during the battle because he felt it was lost. You chosoe to believe him or not.

TJPags wrote...
If he knew when the charge SHOULD have taken place, and could tell that from his vantage, again, why the beacon? 

What timing does Duncan have?

He doens't know when the charge should take place exactly but he can know when it's probably too late. In addition, as Monica's pic showed, the darkspawn were still coming out of the forest and thus he couldn't possibly flank them.

Duncan says "you have less than an hour".  You can expect for how long an army could last.
Since the lighting of the beacon was clearly delayed, Loghain could have judged, quite correctly as the cutscene showed, that the core did not stand by that point.

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
They could have had a captain there in charge.
If the beacon is so vital, then having one there who knows what he is doing, could have lit the beacon without needing a signal. The beacon was suppsoed to be lit as soon as the darkspawn army is engaged in the narrow path. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.

I'm sure they could have, but Loghain did tell Cailin that the plan was for Cailin to give the signal to light the beacon. Also, I'm not sure the battle merely being egaged is when Loghain was supposed to flank.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And no where did I say that Loghain's opinion is factual evidence. I said what he says about his own motives on how he left the battle, is more objective than what those who don't know him accuse him of.

And the fact that Loghain has more experience and which is why he is the general and they are soldiers.

And no where did I say that everyone's opinion of Loghain's motives was more valid that than his own (although they very well may be). I'm saying the other characters that witnessed the battle of Ostagar have a valid opinion on the battle: whether it was winnable, and whether Loghain's retreat was a good idea or not. Their opinions should not be discounted simply because they don't comport with Loghain's or because they are "opinions". By that measure no one could give a judgement about the battle of Ostagar, which is silly.

Modifié par Obadiah, 06 octobre 2010 - 12:53 .

[Monica21]

TJPags wrote...

@ Monica - now, see, THAT helps me. That explains a lot of what I was asking about. Thank you.

It still leaves how he knew the beacon was lit too late, and also, how he was going to make the decision to signal Uldred to light it or not.

The beacon honestly doesn't make much sense to me. I think it's much more for storyline purposes so that Alistair and the Warden are separated from the fighting.

And glad to have helped. I wish a dev would explain the logistics of it, but I'm not even sure they really know. I'm not sure they expected anyone to debate Ostagar this heavily, and may have just been throwing around terms.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I love it when people resort to Flemeth of all people as a reliable witness to how the battle transpired. And then accuse the pro-Loghain argument of falling apart because we question her reliability (and they admit that she is manipulative in the same sentence). Of course I won't mention the supposed reliability of people who were not even there.
 

Wow you guys have been working hard today.

I agree that Flemeth has one motive only for offering information- to manipulate.  She was manipulating Maric and Loghain in TST, and she's manipulating the Warden.  We don't know exactly what she's up to, but what you see and hear from her is precisely what she wants you to see and no more.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...
I'm sure they could have, but Loghain did tell Cailin that the plan was for Cailin to give the signal to light the beacon. Also, I'm not sure the battle merely being egaged is when Loghain was supposed to flank.

He is suppsoed to flank when all the darkspawn are in the valley, which couldn't have happened as the darkspawn army was too big. But it doesn't take a genius to figure out when all the darkspawn are in the valley IF indeed the beacon gives you a vision of the battlefield (which I don't believe it does).

 By that measure no one could give a judgement about the battle of Ostagar, which is silly.

An accurate and completly factual judgement? No, no one can. In historical studies, we only understand a battle after studying it fully, usually after it was done.
What they can give is perceptions.

I think Loghain is better experienced and in a better position to give a sound judgement than the others. That does not mean I dismiss them, it means I consider Loghain's words to be of greater importance.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:05 .