295 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica21]

TJPags wrote...
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.

Okay, different response about the late beacon now that I've thought about it. Duncan tells you have about an hour. That means that based on scouting and battle plans, certain things were supposed to happen. Loghain would have had the same timeframe. If the beacon is late, that means several things could have happened: the signal was late, indicating a problem with the king's forces; the beacon was late, indicating problems getting to the tower or in the tower; or the signal was never sent, indicating desperation on the part of those who lit the beacon.

[thegreateski]

He almost got me killed by Darkspawn, but I believe in second chances. If I can survive being shot with a dozen arrows . . . then he can survive getting his neck slashed open.

or not.

Modifié par thegreateski, 06 octobre 2010 - 01:37 .

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
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).

That is no reason to leave the decison of when to signal Loghain's men to charge to the guy manning the beacon, when someone more senior in rank (like the King or Duncan) is available. For all we know the reason Loghain agreed to allow the Wardens to man the signal was because they could do just that if the signal from the King was not forthcoming. This is not evidence that the Tower of Ishal cannot see the battlefield.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
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.

Fair enough. I don't because I don't trust Loghain's judgment based on the poor choices he made afterwards, and the fact that his experience also seems to have made him unnecessarily arrogant. I trust Alistair's perception/opinion/judgement on the battle because he had a better view.

Modifié par Obadiah, 06 octobre 2010 - 02:37 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...
This is not evidence that the Tower of Ishal cannot see the battlefield.

I won't continue arguing this because it's pointless.
You say that your Warden had a clear vision that the battle could have been won from there. Let's assume he can see it.

What if I say that my Warden thought the battle was clearly lost from what he saw from that exact same position?
How do we deal with that?

We can't unless we have a clear image of the battlefield provided to us right now, which we can analyse, and then we can see who is right and who is wrong. So all this is speculation and no factual evidence. You can certainly RP it that way if you like. And I can rp it the exact other way around based on the assumption taht I too could see the battlefield clearly. So we can't use that as an argument.

Though I will say that Monica's pic showing the darkspawn horde extending well into the forest, clearly shows that flanking was impossible or very risky and us being able to see it is factual. So if I am going to rely on what I see and not some imaginary scene in the tower, I'd say seeing the darkspawn horde being seemingly endless and too big to be trapped in the valley (which is essential for the plan to work), to be evidence that Loghain could not have flanked them. 

Fair enough. I don't because I don't trust Loghain's judgment based on the poor choices he made afterwards, and the fact that his experience also seems to have made him unnecessarily arrogant. I trust Alistair's perception/opinion/judgement on the battle because he had a better view.

Whatever you wish. I don't see the pertinence of it, but play it however you will. I assume you trust Alistair then when he tells you that you've missed the signal. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 octobre 2010 - 02:54 .

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Obadiah wrote...
This is not evidence that the Tower of Ishal cannot see the battlefield.

I won't continue arguing this because it's pointless.
You say that your Warden had a clear vision that the battle could have been won from there. Let's assume he can see it.
...

The relevance of the view from the tower is not what the Warden perceives (obviously we could go back and forth on that and I will certainly not tell anyone how to roleplay their experience), but what Alistair is able to. It means in addition to the bridge, that he had a good view from the tower from which to form an opinion on the battle. That is the only point I wish to make.

Modifié par Obadiah, 06 octobre 2010 - 03:33 .

[Obadiah]

Monica21 wrote...

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.

That is very enlightening. Since darkspawn don't need light to see, there are even more than those shown by the torch trail in the forest.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...
The relevance of the view from the tower is not what the Warden perceives (obviously we could go back and forth on that and I will certainly not tell anyone how to roleplay their experience), but what Alistair is able to. It means in addition to the bridge, that he had a good view from the tower from which to form an opinion on the battle. That is the only point I wish to make.

Well, I personally don't see Alistair as a reliable or pertinent opinion in this situation, considering how he has no military experience.
And if both he and I can see the same thing, I think I'll rely on my own opinion instead. 

Regardless, what we can see from the forest can contradict whatever Alistair may have supposdely seen.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 octobre 2010 - 03:40 .

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Well, I personally don't see Alistair as a reliable or pertinent opinion in this situation, considering how he has no military experience.
And if both he and I can see the same thing, I think I'll rely on my own opinion instead. 

Regardless, what we can see from the forest can contradict whatever Alistair may have supposdely seen.

Sure. The only reason I spent so long discussing it is that there seems to be an attempt to unecessarily undermine all other witnesses (Alistair, Wynne, the noble's friend, etc...) to the battle of Ostagar in order to come to the conclusion that one trusts Loghain's judgement/opinion/perception over others because of this obvious experience and good military judgement. People may disagree for their own reasons (as I do) but it is a  valid argument whose conclusion can stand on its own.

Warden at the War Council: Oh COME ON! Cailin, don't stand with the darkspawn bait! You can have a perfectly glorious heroic flank attack - didn't you see Gladiator?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...
Sure. The only reason I spent so long discussing it is that there seems to be an attempt to unecessarily undermine all other witnesses (Alistair, Wynne, the noble's friend, etc...) to the battle of Ostagar in order to come to the conclusion that one trusts Loghain's judgement/opinion/perception over others because of this obvious experience and good military judgement. People may disagree for their own reasons (as I do) but it is a  valid argument whose conclusion can stand on its own.

Warden at the War Council: Oh COME ON! Cailin, don't stand with the darkspawn bait! You can have a perfectly glorious heroic flank attack - didn't you see Gladiator?

Oh I didn't mean for it to sound like I am saying their opinions are invalid. I apologise if this is how it came across. I reacted to what I understood as an attempt to show their opinion as factual evidence that the battle could have been won. I said earlier that we can't know for a fact if the battle could have been won or lost. What we can say however is that Loghain's primary motive for retreating is because he thought the battle was lost, and I agree with him. But I do not present his opinion (or mine vis a vis this specific issue) as fact. Just that, imo, I consider it more reliable than others. But others may disagree and it's understandable.

And yes totally. Cailan should have been the one leading the flank. Then again, he might have totally prematurely charged and got himself killed anyways. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 octobre 2010 - 04:12 .

[testing123]

Obadiah wrote...
Sure. The only reason I spent so long discussing it is that there seems to be an attempt to unecessarily undermine all other witnesses (Alistair, Wynne, the noble's friend, etc...) to the battle of Ostagar in order to come to the conclusion that one trusts Loghain's judgement/opinion/perception over others because of this obvious experience and good military judgement.

This frustrates me as well.  David Gaider left this intentionally vague when he answered Loghain questions, I would imagine because it is meant to be a point of contention.  Loghain's retreat at Ostagar was a judgement call.  You are free to support his decision or criticize it, there is no right answer since we can't know what would have happened had he charged.

Most everything about Ostagar has been argued to death, the only thing I would add is this.  If everyone always made the 'smart Loghain decision,' Loghain wouldn't even be alive.  In The Stolen Throne, Loghain essentially volunteered for a suicide mission that had him holding out against insurmountable odds.  Rowan disobeyed a direct order and came to his rescue, the battle still won.  Had she made the 'smart' decision and honored his sacrifice, Dragon Age Origins would not even exist.  Loghain would have died for his country in the revolution.  (I believe this is how it went down, if you remember the book better than me feel free to elaborate or correct me if I'm wrong.)

One last point, it is important to note that Loghain made his decision to retreat under the perception that Orlais was plotting to prey on Ferelden while it was weak.  With Orlais and the Blight knocking on the doorstep, this put the value of Loghain's army at a premium, he could not afford to take chances.  Perhaps he genuinely believed that the battle was unwinnable and he wasn't just weighing the costs of action, but I find it hard to believe it didn't influence his decision.

If I've reignited the retreat at Ostagar debate, I apologize.  I just didn't think those points had been mentioned before, or at least not enough has been made of them, and I wanted to get it out there while the topic was still somewhat fresh.  As always, I don't expect to change anyone's mind, I merely hope that I can put forth a point of view that others hadn't necessarily considered before.

[Elhanan]

hahaha! This to good not to share.

I just went to the game in a recent save to the Camp; after Lothering, but before any major quest. While the scene is loading, the screen entry reminds me of what I will do about Loghain's betrayal!

Writer's rock!

Modifié par Elhanan, 06 octobre 2010 - 03:30 .

[Sarah1281]

Elhanan wrote...

hahaha! This to good not to share.

I just went to the game in a recent save to the Camp; after Lothering, but before any major quest. While the scene is loading, the screen entry reminds me of what I will do about Loghain's betrayal!

Writer's rock!

What did it say? 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Elhanan wrote...

hahaha! This to good not to share.

I just went to the game in a recent save to the Camp; after Lothering, but before any major quest. While the scene is loading, the screen entry reminds me of what I will do about Loghain's betrayal!

Writer's rock!

What did it say? 

The pause screen does mention "Loghain's betrayal" once. I forgot the exact line.

Of course, the writers are not going to say:
"Ostagar was lost because of Loghain's treachery. Or did he retreat because he thought the battle was lost? Can we qualify that as treachery? What was he supposed to do? hmmm"

So, they resort to saying that, which is stupid. They should have just said "Loghain's retreat."

In any case, I couldn't care less. I will form my own opinion, the last thing I want is a game  pause screen telling me how I should interpret things. Writers are only here to give facts. At the end of the day, I don't care about how they subjectively judge events and people.

And while using that as an argument can be very tempting (for thsoe who have exhausted all other real arguments), it would be an insult to the multiple long threads about Loghain attempting to analyse, judge and argue for or against his actions.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 octobre 2010 - 04:17 .

[Sarah1281]

Maybe Alistair wrote the screen in question?

[nos_astra]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Maybe Alistair wrote the screen in question?

He also wrote the VO notes for Simon Templeman!

Modifié par klarabella, 06 octobre 2010 - 04:32 .

[Sarah1281]

klarabella wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Maybe Alistair wrote the screen in question?

He also wrote the VO notes for Simon Templeman!

That was thoughtful of him. Too bad Loghain didn't bother to proof-read them.

[Addai]

klarabella wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Maybe Alistair wrote the screen in question?

He also wrote the VO notes for Simon Templeman!

I'm not sure what VO notes you're referring to, but David Gaider also wrote Alistair's dialogue, and Shale's dialogue where she calls Loghain a traitor.  Everyone in the game has their own view of things, including the Warden.  RP freedom is not absolute.

Elsewhere I've argued that the game does heavily lead the Warden to see Loghain's actions as a betrayal/ villainous and I think that is the case.  The fact that he's trying to kill you being the big factor that would lead most Wardens to come to that conclusion.  It's a conflict that drives a lot of the game.  Even within RP freedom, the Warden's perspective is necessarily limited because no one person on the ground can know everything.  That's the spirit of the slide, IMO- it's what the game assumes your PC to think at that point.

Here on the forums, DG let us in to some of the god perspective on Loghain's motives and behind the scenes actions whereby we know that it's not as black and white as all that.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Elsewhere I've argued that the game does heavily lead the Warden to see Loghain's actions as a betrayal/ villainous and I think that is the case.  The fact that he's trying to kill you being the big factor that would lead most Wardens to come to that conclusion.  It's a conflict that drives a lot of the game.  Even within RP freedom, the Warden's perspective is necessarily limited because no one person on the ground can know everything.  That's the spirit of the slide, IMO- it's what the game assumes your PC to think at that point.

Here on the forums, DG let us in to some of the god perspective on Loghain's motives and behind the scenes actions whereby we know that it's not as black and white as all that.

Well when I first played the game, and I had not read the books and I knew nothing of Loghain, I never thought that Loghain was "evil", or was treacherous, or "black" as opposed to "grey" or "white". Did I think he was an enemy? Yes. An antagonist? Yes. That he had to be stopped? Yes. But I never thought he was a traitor, nor did I think he was a villain.

Now is the game trying to push me to view it as black and white? Maybe.
Do I care? Not in the slighest.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 octobre 2010 - 04:53 .

[Wulfram]

The big "Loghain is a bad guy" push is making sure that the last thing the player did before the landsmeet was the alienage slavery quest.



At the landsmeet itself he's written quite sympathetically, and execution is clearly intended to make the player feel a bit queasy about it.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Elsewhere I've argued that the game does heavily lead the Warden to see Loghain's actions as a betrayal/ villainous and I think that is the case.  The fact that he's trying to kill you being the big factor that would lead most Wardens to come to that conclusion.  It's a conflict that drives a lot of the game.  Even within RP freedom, the Warden's perspective is necessarily limited because no one person on the ground can know everything.  That's the spirit of the slide, IMO- it's what the game assumes your PC to think at that point.

Here on the forums, DG let us in to some of the god perspective on Loghain's motives and behind the scenes actions whereby we know that it's not as black and white as all that.

Well when I first played the game, and I had not read the books and I knew nothing of Loghain, I never thought that Loghain was "evil", or was treacherous, or "black" as opposed to "grey" or "white". Did I think he was an enemy? Yes. An antagonist? Yes. That he had to be stopped? Yes. But I never thought he was a traitor, nor did I think he was a villain.

Now is the game trying to push me to view it as black and white? Maybe.
Do I care? Not in the slighest.

No, I don't think the game pushes you to see things as black and white.  In fact they break immersion in order to show you what is happening in Denerim, to help the player get a larger overview than the Warden has.  But some assumptions are made for you.  Or let's call them inclinations.  We've discussed this before- you don't get to proclaim Loghain innocent and let him go at the end, your only two choices are to make him a Warden or cut his head off.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
We've discussed this before- you don't get to proclaim Loghain innocent and let him go at the end, your only two choices are to make him a Warden or cut his head off.

Well yes of course, we are limited in choice. Just like we can't imprison Alistair and the only choice we have is either let him go or allow his execution.

But, those choices can be explained in-game without having to assume what the Warden feels.

For instance, my Warden made Loghain a Grey Warden essentially because he would be useful, not out of a sense of punishment. And in addition to that, making Loghain lose all his title and riches can give my Warden the appearance of punishing him, which is necessary as Loghain lost the Landsmeet in my playthrough.
However, I rp that my Warden did not particurarily want to punish him, just did it as a political necessity. No where do I feel forced to believe that my Warden wanted him to be punished or thought him deserving of punishment. I could rp it that way for sure, but my Warden didn't.