295 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarah1281]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

TJPags wrote...

I hate to get back into this, but how does that conversation vindicate Loghain?

He had no mages?  Why didn't he keep some with his troops?

Mages ran?  As the lines of soldiers were being over-run, what were they supposed to do?

I see his point here, but I don't see how it vindicates his decision.

Seeing that mages are ridiculously overpowered in Dragon Age, they could have easily killed the Darkspawn. I mean, they already had them in that narrow path, so why weren't the mages spamming Tempest, Inferno, etc. like there was no tomorrow? 

Huge plot hole is huge.

What plot hole? There were thousands upon thousands of them there and the survivors of Ostagar were the ones overruning Ferelden for a year afterwards. They had seven mages. Had they been able to defeat all of the darkspawn then they wouldn't just be overpowered, they'd be the most ridiculous Mary Sues ever.

[Addai]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

TJPags wrote...

I hate to get back into this, but how does that conversation vindicate Loghain?

He had no mages?  Why didn't he keep some with his troops?

Mages ran?  As the lines of soldiers were being over-run, what were they supposed to do?

I see his point here, but I don't see how it vindicates his decision.

Seeing that mages are ridiculously overpowered in Dragon Age, they could have easily killed the Darkspawn. I mean, they already had them in that narrow path, so why weren't the mages spamming Tempest, Inferno, etc. like there was no tomorrow? 

Huge plot hole is huge.

Well, remember we're not talking about the Warden.  Wynne is pathetic attack-wise when you pick her up.  Ever try to take Jowan into the Fade?  That is the sort of mage you're dealing with, not Virulent Bomb-dropping, flameball-chucking, Storm of the Century wielding gods.

[CalJones]

That's very true. The only good offensive spell she has at that point is stone fist. She's basically a healer, which is useful to have around in battle, but not offensively.

However, we don't know how good the other mages are. They have Uldred - I suspect he'd be a fair bit more powerful. Still not powerful enough to deal with thousands of darkspawn, though.

[KnightofPhoenix]

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.

The reality is that the outcome of Ostagar had Loghain charged is unknown to us. It could have been a defeat, could have been a victory. It's too murky to know exactly (though I think we can all agree that strategically, even as a victory it would have been insignificant or still heavily damaging to Ferelden, as the majority of the horde was still underground with the Archdemon). We have enough hints that imply that the battle was lost, but no clear evidence.

And with this much uncertainty (conceding that we can't know whether it would have been a victory or not), I agree with Sun Tzu's argument that the wise general is the one who retreats and doesn't risk it. Thus, with all this uncertainty, Loghain's retreat is fully justified imo. You can think otherwise with your romantic unpractical views on warfare if you so desire.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 octobre 2010 - 04:30 .

[sylvanaerie]

To the OP. Without going into much detail, there are a number of reasons (good ones) to spare Loghain. Just as there are a number of reasons (also good ones) to kill him. In the end, as long as you enjoyed your game, that's the only reason that counts.



That being said, for me, killing him is the most satisfying death in the game, the culmination of hours of gameplay of being hunted and slandered throughout the game. While i find killing him immensely satisfying, I dislike killing him in front of his daughter, I'd much prefer some scene where he is taken away to await execution in the tower. Or even taken away for an executioner to perform it.



I guess chalk it up to Bioware for them to think (and probably rightly so) that most players who want him dead want to see that *BLECH*

[Merilsell]

sylvanaerie wrote...
 While i find killing him immensely satisfying, I dislike killing him in front of his daughter, I'd much prefer some scene where he is taken away to await execution in the tower. Or even taken away for an executioner to perform it.

I guess chalk it up to Bioware for them to think (and probably rightly so) that most players who want him dead want to see that *BLECH*

Obvious player manipulation is obvious.

Honestly this scene to kill him before his daughter is only there to make the player feel bad about the decision, or show an actual effect of this decision. The speech he gives about daughters always staying a girl no matter how old they are yadda yadda right before the execution is a blatant try to appeal/ reach the player's emotion. A good one... but obvious nonetheless.

[Elhanan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

 But that's not what it's about. It's about these people having no idea what happened at Ostagar. Wynne was there and she did come back to heal people but guess what? She still left before Loghain did. Her accusation of Loghain being a traitor (which she doesn't even get to testify about as she wasn't at the meeting Irving called where Uldred went crazy) delayed the vote but the meeting seemed to be more about asking Uldred to refute Wynne's charges than automatically accepting her word over his. Uldred just cracked in the middle of it. Her actions at the Tower during the blood mage takeover in no way mean she has any idea what happened with Loghain.

Yes, Alistair's lineage is very impressive. Yes, he cared for Duncan and the other Wardens very deeply. This serves to make him extremely biased and still does not mean he had a decent view of the battle or idea what went on. He was with you the whole time and it's not like, cutscene aside, you saw what happened.

Teagan wasn't at Ostagar. Neither were the surviving Bannorn or Anora. The tortured noble was operating on second-hand information that is itself suspect because the only way the soldier could have been ordered to retreat and have the timing of this potentially damn Loghain in any way (thus prompting his disappearance) would have been if he were stationed with Loghain and if he's standing behind Loghain and Loghain can't see Cailan then he can't possibly know either. He's just guessing. Guessing from a random soldier is not damning evidence.

No one is accusing Flemeth of being stupid. You've conceded that she's manipulative. She says that Loghain quit the field and she also mutters something about the 'darkness in men's hearts.' Why does the fact that she realizes that the Blight is not in her best interest mean that she's suddenly going to be completely honest about everything else? Confront her about Morrigan's body-snatching accusations and she blatantly refuses to tell you anything and tells you that the truth is too valuable to be given lightly.

None of these people are really any sort of credibly witness about what happened at Ostagar. It doesn't make them incompetent, it just makes them uncredible. They can be amazingly selfless, poitically skilled, good at fighting, whatever and that does not mean that they have an informed and unbiased view of events.

Wynne's testimony is believed by many in the Circle, so it does bear weight towards her credibility. And Uldred's later actions and words for Loghain are most likely going to push the Circle away from him. Again, she may not be credible to many here, but she is still a witness, and one with some clout.

Alistair and the Warden do seem to be able to see the field from the Tower, as they relive the moments on their return visit to Ostagar.

Others aside, I do not recall ever using Flemeth as a witness. While I have used her dialogue with Alistair to indicate his POV, I do not believe I ever called her a witness as she is suspect. I just do not think that some can toss her aside so lightly, as she may have seen the battle and rescued the Wardens as a way to save her plans.

In the end though, the only time I can spare Loghain is when I know that he will serve justice later, or it benefits my plans for a specific Warden.

[Sarah1281]

Wynne's testimony is believed by many in the Circle, so it does bear weight towards her credibility. And Uldred's later actions and words for Loghain are most likely going to push the Circle away from him. Again, she may not be credible to many here, but she is still a witness, and one with some clout.

No, Wynne being a respected figure at the Circle and Uldred getting possessed do not mean that Wynne actually saw Cailan still alive when Loghain retreated.

Alistair and the Warden do seem to be able to see the field from the Tower, as they relive the moments on their return visit to Ostagar.

They might be able to see SOME of it but that's not enough to make an accurate judgement about whether Cailan was still alive when they lit the beacon or whether they could have saved him since they don't even find out that Loghain didn't charge until Flemeth tells them.

Modifié par Sarah1281, 05 octobre 2010 - 05:30 .

[Obadiah]

Sarah1281 wrote...
...
Wynne was there and she did come back to heal people but guess what? She still left before Loghain did.
...

What is the proof of that? Does she say that somewhere?

[Elhanan]

Sarah1281 wrote...

No, Wynne being a respected figure at the Circle and Uldred getting possessed do not mean that Wynne actually saw Cailan still alive when Loghain retreated.

Again, it does not really matter. Her testimony is that Loghain's actions were those of a traitor, and she is believed by the Circle. Such testimony confirms what others say, and offers more evidence against Loghain.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Wynne's testimony is believed by many in the Circle, so it does bear weight towards her credibility. And Uldred's later actions and words for Loghain are most likely going to push the Circle away from him. Again, she may not be credible to many here, but she is still a witness, and one with some clout.

No, Wynne being a respected figure at the Circle and Uldred getting possessed do not mean that Wynne actually saw Cailan still alive when Loghain retreated.

Neither does that make her a reliable source of analysing how the battle transpired and what ought to be done. Wynne was more respected than Uldred and her flamboyant accusations of treason were bound to be heard. 

At the end of the day however, Wynne admits that, as usual, she is wrong about Loghain and that's the end of it.

Oh and flashbacks in RtO are no indication whatsoever, unless you want to tell me that Alistair and the Warden can remember seeing a volley of arrows from darkspawn pov.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Elhanan wrote...
Again, it does not really matter. Her testimony is that Loghain's actions were those of a traitor, and she is believed by the Circle. Such testimony confirms what others say, and offers more evidence against Loghain.

No, it's not. It's evidence that some people believe Loghain to be a traitor and taht the Circle believed her.
It is not evidence however that if Loghain charged, he would have won and as such if his retreat was not militarily sound.

[Elhanan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Neither does that make her a reliable source of analysing how the battle transpired and what ought to be done. Wynne was more respected than Uldred and her flamboyant accusations of treason were bound to be heard. 

At the end of the day however, Wynne admits that, as usual, she is wrong about Loghain and that's the end of it.

Oh and flashbacks in RtO are no indication whatsoever, unless you want to tell me that Alistair and the Warden can remember seeing a volley of arrows from darkspawn pov.

No more removed than using RtO as a source of possible motivation when this DLC was written outside of the actual IG events. We saw the arrows fly from the bridge; we saw the flames in the eyes of the Darkspawn. Well, my Elves might have. Plus, I have the cutscenes already listed into evidence.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Elhanan wrote...
No more removed than using RtO as a source of possible motivation when this DLC was written outside of the actual IG events.

This is nonsense. RtO is IG. No one is using it to refer to the original concept that was abandonned. But the evidence presented in RtO is valid. The DLC was written with certain elements of the original concepts and those elements are in-game evidence. The rest of that original idea is not.

Elhanan wrote...
We saw the arrows fly from the bridge; we saw the flames in the eyes of the Darkspawn. Well, my Elves might have. Plus, I have the cutscenes already listed into evidence.

We didn't see anything from the eyes of the darkspawn, it's a game cutscene outside of our PC's perspective. And unless you remained for an hour on the bridge, your view of the battlefield was very short and under the stress of running to the tower like you are supposed to, you and Alistair have not seen the battle transpire.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 octobre 2010 - 05:45 .

[Elhanan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, it's not. It's evidence that some people believe Loghain to be a traitor and taht the Circle believed her.
It is not evidence however that if Loghain charged, he would have won and as such if his retreat was not militarily sound.

Nobody knows if Loghain would have won if he had charged; just know that we lost because he did not follow his own plan to do so. And Wynne's belief matches that of the few that survived the event that are willing to speak out against the general.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Elhanan wrote...
Nobody knows if Loghain would have won if he had charged; just know that we lost because he did not follow his own plan to do so. And Wynne's belief matches that of the few that survived the event that are willing to speak out against the general.

Or saved the army from a very uncertain battle, more like it.
Certainly doesn't match Cailan's guard's account.
It is to be expected that some survivors will blame Loghain for the loss, it's natural. Doesn't make it an objective account and certainly not factual evidence.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 octobre 2010 - 05:50 .

[vigna]

Monica21 wrote...

In my first playthrough I had no intention of killing him when he yielded. The reason I did kill him was because my character was romancing Alistair. And that's really the only reason.

I had  a male first time thorugh...and didn't know the exact repercussions. I wanted Alistair to marry Anora. So I believed that killing Loghain would screw that all to pieces. Plus I didn't want to kill him for pretty much the same reasons as the OP anyway.

So, yes it is valid IMO.

[Sarah1281]

Elhanan wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, it's not. It's evidence that some people believe Loghain to be a traitor and taht the Circle believed her.
It is not evidence however that if Loghain charged, he would have won and as such if his retreat was not militarily sound.

Nobody knows if Loghain would have won if he had charged; just know that we lost because he did not follow his own plan to do so. And Wynne's belief matches that of the few that survived the event that are willing to speak out against the general.

You realize that the fact that most people who survived the battle don't come out condemning Loghain is not a sign that they secretly thought he was guilty but were scared of him, right? 

[Elhanan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

This is nonsense. RtO is IG. No one is using it to refer to the original concept that was abandonned. But the evidence presented in RtO is valid. The DLC was written with certain elements of the original concepts and those elements are in-game evidence. The rest of that original idea is not.

We didn't see anything from the eyes of the darkspawn, it's a game cutscene outside of our PC's perspective. And unless you remained for an hour on the brdige, your ivew of the battlefield was very short and under the stress of runnign to the tower like you are supposed to, you and Alistair have not see the battle transpire.

So the "Original material not used until later DLC" is valid; so then are the memories of those who return. So not all the memories are from proper POV; not the first time this error has occured.
 
Or perhaps we saw it when in the Fade....

In any event, the two Wardens were in a good position at some point to view the battlefield. What we may not have been able to see is whether Loghain enjoyed the moment of retreat or not.

[Elhanan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Or saved the army from a very uncertain battle, more like it.
Certainly doesn't match Cailan's guard's account.
It is to be expected that some survivors will blame Loghain for the loss, it's natural. Doesn't make it an objective account and certainly not factual evidence.  

Tis evidence; not proof. But as we have the testimony of several that confirms this POV, tis good enough for me.

[Obadiah]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Elhanan wrote...
Nobody knows if Loghain would have won if he had charged; just know that we lost because he did not follow his own plan to do so. And Wynne's belief matches that of the few that survived the event that are willing to speak out against the general.

Or saved the army from a very uncertain battle, more like it.
Certainly doesn't match Cailan's guard's account.
It is to be expected that some survivors will blame Loghain for the loss, it's natural. Doesn't make it an objective account and certainly not factual evidence.  

Maybe, or maybe Loghain's distaste for the origal plan or Cailin's behavior colored his judgement at a crucial moment. Aspersions to every witness who disputes Loghain's version of Ostagar doesn't make Loghain's account of the battle any more objective than theirs.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Elhanan wrote...
So the "Original material not used until later DLC" is valid; so then are the memories of those who return. So not all the memories are from proper POV; not the first time this error has occured.

This is just a weak and invalid comparison. You are comparing factual in-game evidence that we as a character can read and see, with game custcenes that our characters have no way of seeing and then use that as evidence?
It's like using the Loghain Denerim cutscenes as evidence. They are not.
They can be used as evidence from an out-game perspective, but not in-game. Same with those RtO cutscenes.
 

Elhanan wrote...
In any event, the two Wardens were in a good position at some point to view the battlefield. What we may not have been able to see is whether Loghain enjoyed the moment of retreat or not.

At some point you mean for 5 minutes? That's enough to surmise that you and Alsitair were able to see the battlefield completely and determine its outcome? You were on that bridge for a few minutes, unless you decided to stand there like an idiot for an hour.
You were not in a position to determine whether the front was standing or collapsing, when you are at the tower. All you know is that you've missed the signal.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 05 octobre 2010 - 06:00 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Elhanan wrote...
Tis evidence; not proof. But as we have the testimony of several that confirms this POV, tis good enough for me.

Tis not factual objective evidence. But if that's enough for you, good for you.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Obadiah wrote...
Maybe, or maybe Loghain's distaste for the origal plan or Cailin's behavior colored his judgement at a crucial moment. Aspersions to every witness who disputes Loghain's version of Ostagar doesn't make Loghain's account of the battle any more objective than theirs.

Loghain can certainly be more objective on his own motives. You choose to believe him or not.

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

[Elhanan]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

This is just a weak and invalid comparison You are comparing factual in-game evidence that we as a character can read and see, with game custcenes that our characters have no way of seeing and then use that as evidence?
It's like using the Loghain cutscenes as evidence. They are not.
They can be used as evidence from an out-game perspective, but not in-game. Same with those RtO cutscenes. 

Your opinion; mine differs. 

At some point you mean for 5 minutes? That's enough to surmise that you and Alsitair were able to see the battlefield compeltely and determine its outcome? You were on that bridge for a few minutes, unless you decided to stand there like an idiot for an hour.
You were not in a position to determine whether the front was standing or collapsing, when you are at the tower. All you know is that you've missed the signal.

Seems to be as good as a position as Loghain had at the time. And why do I believe I missed the signal? Because of Alistair's outbursts? I thought your side could not believe his testimony as it was biased and emotional? Maybe his watch stopped....

What we do know is that the the signal was lit, Loghain was still in position, and then took that as a time to retreat leaving the King, the Wardens, and a good sized portion of the army to die. Fotunate indeed.