248 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

sylvanaerie wrote...

Actually we DO know at that point whether Loghain would have called for one because he doesn't call for it, he simply rants at that point. Leading me to believe he isn't in a position to ask for one. 

I don't see the point of him ranting if he was planing to kill them anyways, giving them time to prepare their defenses.
But yes, we dont' really know how Ferelden operates this stupid tradition of duels being able to overturn everything.

sylvanaerie wrote...
You can't say "He would have asked for one if he could" because he doesn't at that point, the PC does. 

But we don't know if he could have or not, if the PC didn't say anything and didn't attack.

sylvanaerie wrote...
This behavior leads me to believe he really doesn't have an option to call for one at that point unless it's offered to him.
 

Would have made much more sense then if he immediately started killing them before they knew what hit them.

[Liliandra Nadiar]

Her life may not have been in any danger, but her voice and freedoms might have been. True, she was most likely over exaggerating the situation, Eamon and Loghain both said she had a tendency toward dramatizing, but if Loghain knew his daughter was against him? She wouldn't be killed but I doubt she'd be seen outside the palace much if at all.

[Wulfram]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Well, contrast the way Eamon acts with Loghain's tantrum, Bhelen's attempt to massacre half the Assembly and Anora's apparent preference to die rather than acknowledge that she's not the queen any more.

Eamon starts an onslaught when his beloved traditional Landsmeet votes against him and empowers Loghain.

I don't think it's particularly clear that Loghain was entitled to execute Eamon without trial.  The warden only has that option after they've defeated Loghain in a duel after all.

And Anora thinks she is going to die anyhow, thus still demands her throne. She didn't know Alistair would emprison her (and she says so). 

There's no reason for her to believe her life is in danger if she does as Eamon asks and swears allegiance.  In that case, she'd likely inherit Gwaren and play a key role in Ferelden's future.  She instead chooses to sulk.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...
I don't think it's particularly clear that Loghain was entitled to execute Eamon without trial.  The warden only has that option after they've defeated Loghain in a duel after all.

A duel that was specifically until one party yields. It didn't specify your right to execute him.
And seeing how the Landsmeet did not speak out against Loghain calling for your exeuction, then we have no evidence to suggest that it wasn't within his legal rights. Just like we don't have any evidence that it isn't within your rights to execute him after the duel.
The Landsmeet says nothing in either case.

Add the fact that you already murdered Howe without a trial anyways. Making your party guilty of murder, which can make you "executable" without trial.

Wulfram wrote...
There's no reason for her to believe her life is in danger if she does as Eamon asks and swears allegiance.  In that case, she'd likely inherit Gwaren and play a key role in Ferelden's future.  She instead chooses to sulk.

Why not? She can very well believe that Eamon wants her dead so that she can never have a claim to the throne.
If Alistair leaves the Warden order, she wants him executed for this reason. Why shouldn't she think that Eamon would have done the same?

[Addai]

sylvanaerie wrote...

Actually we DO know at that point whether Loghain would have called for one because he doesn't call for it, he simply rants at that point. Leading me to believe he isn't in a position to ask for one. Perhaps it isn't a part of Ferelden tradition? I can't argue on that point because I don't know Ferelden laws and have no basis on which to post an argument on that point. Maybe only the winnner (or the Landsmeet itself) can call for a duel of honor at that point, and the loser has the option of either fighting or accepting death gracefully.

It is a Fereldan tradition, as Alfstanna's words suggest.  Also the Orlesian war was ended finally when Maric called for a duel with King Meghren (the Orlesian usurper king).  At which Loghain went ballistic, so no, I don't think he cares much for the tradition when Ferelden's security is on the line.

Maric vs. Meghren, now that is a duel I'd like to see. 

Modifié par Addai67, 21 novembre 2010 - 08:46 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

At which Loghain went ballistic, so no, I don't think he cares much for the tradition when Ferelden's security is on the line.

It's a slightly different scenario.
The duel with Meghren was completely and utterly pointless. A duel in the Landsmeet that can make you overrule a vote to your advantage is not pointless.

[sylvanaerie]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

sylvanaerie wrote...

Actually we DO know at that point whether Loghain would have called for one because he doesn't call for it, he simply rants at that point. Leading me to believe he isn't in a position to ask for one. 

I don't see the point of him ranting if he was planing to kill them anyways, giving them time to prepare their defenses.
But yes, we dont' really know how Ferelden operates this stupid tradition of duels being able to overturn everything.

sylvanaerie wrote...
You can't say "He would have asked for one if he could" because he doesn't at that point, the PC does. 

But we don't know if he could have or not, if the PC didn't say anything and didn't attack.

sylvanaerie wrote...
This behavior leads me to believe he really doesn't have an option to call for one at that point unless it's offered to him.
 

Would have made much more sense then if he immediately started killing them before they knew what hit them.

Yes, we do.  He has a WHOLE bunch of lines and all he does is rant at the assembled nobles.  Never once does he call for a duel.  Which leads me to believe he isn't allowed to if he loses.  Either that or Loghain is just not thinking?  I'd prefer to believe calling for the duel is only if there is question (As the Landsmeet does) as to who is right or wrong or offering as one final 'put your money where your mouth is' (from the winner of the Landsmeet).
Yes, him slaughtering everyone does make more sense and that's one of the options.  When you offer the duel you even say "Call off your men" not "Okay let's duel this out" which also leads me to believe he's about to do JUST that!  If you can call Eamon a hypocrit for doing that 'against tradition' doesn't it make Loghain just as much a hypocrit to claim to be fighting for Ferelden and doing all those horrible things he won't even own up to at the Landsmeet?  Isn't the whole reason he gives for fighting "For Ferelden"?  Part of that is the 'traditions' he stomps all over though he doesn't say the word tradition.  Even if he does win, he will have destroyed the very thing he says he is fighting for.  Seems to me, calling Eamon a hypocrit for fighting for his life against traditions is pretty much vilifying the man for what may not be his choice.  He certainly doesn't look like someone who WANTS to have to fight at that point (and when he calls for it (The Landsmeet) initially one of the options the PC has in Redcliffe is "I wanted to meet Loghain in battle".)  Eamon knows it's a waste of resources to be infighting.  He is TRYING to deal with this according to the law of the land, not go all vigilante on everyone.  And we don't know enough about Ferelden law to even know if a duel is an option for the loser (seeing as how Loghain doesn't call for one but spends his time ranting instead). 
Again, I don't blame him for fighting for his life, I have a lot of fun battling it out at the Landsmeet.  Again, I don't blame anyone for how the game mechanics forces them to act, I simply try to find RP reasons why they act that way.  Loghain NOT calling for the duel I don't see as wanting to start a fight but maybe as an option that isn't available to the loser unless the Landsmeet calls for it. 
*Some editing done to remove spoilers for original poster*

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 21 novembre 2010 - 08:54 .

[Wulfram]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

A duel that was specifically until one party yields. It didn't specify your right to execute him.
And seeing how the Landsmeet did not speak out against Loghain calling for your exeuction, then we have no evidence to suggest that it wasn't within his legal rights. Just like we don't have any evidence that it isn't within your rights to execute him after the duel.
The Landsmeet says nothing in either case.

Well, a large chunk of the Landsmeet may in fact fight on your side against Loghain, which counts as speaking out in my book.

Add the fact that you already murdered Howe without a trial anyways. Making your party guilty of murder, which can make you "executable" without trial.

Firstly, the Warden acted on the orders, and in defence, of the person Loghain claims is the Queen.  So not murder.

Plus, I'm not talking about Loghain's rights to execute the Wardens, I'm talking about his right to execute Eamon - of whom there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Wulfram wrote...
There's no reason for her to believe her life is in danger if she does as Eamon asks and swears allegiance.  In that case, she'd likely inherit Gwaren and play a key role in Ferelden's future.  She instead chooses to sulk.

Why not? She can very well believe that Eamon wants her dead so that she can never have a claim to the throne.
If Alistair leaves the Warden order, she wants him executed for this reason. Why shouldn't she think that Eamon would have done the same?

If he was going to have her executed her anyway, why should he ask for her allegiance to Alistair?  Refusing serves nothing except to endanger Ferelden and encourage her execution.

[KnightofPhoenix]

sylvanaerie wrote...
Yes, we do.  He has a WHOLE bunch of lines and all he does is rant at the assembled nobles.  Never once does he call for a duel.  Which leads me to believe he isn't allowed to if he loses. 

We don't even know if he finished talking. Again, if he wanted to kill them, he wouldn't have wasted his time ranting and making them prepare, he would have gone commando on them. So why rant in the first place?

sylvanaerie wrote...
Yes, him slaughtering everyone does make more sense and that's one of the options.  When you offer the duel you even say "Call off your men" not "Okay let's duel this out" which also leads me to believe he's about to do JUST that!

We don't know that. Him calling his men around him might be to intimidate the Landsmeet. If he wanted to kill everyone, he wouldn't have wasted his time ranting and would have told his men to attack instead. 

sylvanaerie wrote...
If you can call Eamon a hypocrit for doing that 'against tradition' doesn't it make Loghain just as much a hypocrit to claim to be fighting for Ferelden and doing all those horrible things he won't even own up to at the Landsmeet? 

No, since I do not see those "horrible things" as harming Ferelden.
His mistake in dealing with the bannorn was what harmed Ferelden, but it's more of a big somewhat stupid mistake rather than hypocracy.

sylvanaerie wrote...
Even if he does win, he will have destroyed the very thing he says he is fighting for. 

Due to ignorance, not hypocracy.

sylvanaerie wrote...
Seems to me, calling Eamon a hypocrit for fighting for his life against traditions is pretty much vilifying the man for what may not be his choice. 

A- I am not villifying him
B- it was Eamon who claimed that traditions must not be sacrificed to protect Ferelden. So he is saying one thing and doing another.

sylvanaerie wrote...
Again, I don't blame him for fighting for his life, I have a lot of fun battling it out at the Landsmeet.  Again, I don't blame anyone for how the game mechanics forces them to act, I simply try to find RP reasons why they act that way.

Again, I don't blame him either, I would have done the same.
But I would not have claimed that we cannot sacrifice traditions to save Ferelden, I would sacrifice much more.

sylvanaerie wrote...
 Loghain NOT calling for the duel I don't see as wanting to start a fight but maybe as an option that isn't available to the loser unless the Landsmeet calls for it.

All we can do is speculate, but I find it weird that Loghain is ranting instead of killing everyone immediately if he knew he didn't have any other option.
Which makes Ferelden a pathetic excuse of a country.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...
Well, a large chunk of the Landsmeet may in fact fight on your side against Loghain, which counts as speaking out in my book..

Probably for being on the losing side.
Considering how idiotic the entire system is, we don't really know why they are fighting. Seems to me that they could speak out against something illegal before starting to kill, which is just as illegal.

Firstly, the Warden acted on the orders, and in defence, of the person Loghain claims is the Queen.  So not murder.

No one told you to kill Howe. Anora just told you to get to his mages.
Furthermore, Loghain did not even know what happened to Anora, no one knew. He even thought you kidnapped her. Since she doesn't explain what happened when she showed up. 

Plus, I'm not talking about Loghain's rights to execute the Wardens, I'm talking about his right to execute Eamon - of whom there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

He sent you to Howe's house, and is your ally so making him an accomplice. In Loghain's mind, he is the main rebel, being Loghain's main opponent. And he seeks to dethrone the Queen.
At that point, I think it was within his rights. The entire system being flawed however, I would say the one who wins has pretty much the right to do whatever the **** he wants.

If he was going to have her executed her anyway, why should he ask for her allegiance to Alistair?  Refusing serves nothing except to endanger Ferelden and encourage her execution.

So she wouldn't die a martyr? And for others not to claim that the rightful Queen was murdered, since most nobles hold her in high esteem?
If she renounces her claim, then she is officially no longer the Queen and can be executed with much less trouble.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 novembre 2010 - 09:14 .

[sylvanaerie]

Which makes Ferelden a pathetic excuse of a country.

[/quote]

I hear that. 
As I said, we don't know enough about Ferelden law to know what Loghain's options are and him not calling for a duel and instead ranting might be his trying to 1) buy time/distract to allow his men time to get into position for a fight 2) be him pleading his case one last time allowing the Landsmeet to question the veracity of it because law keeps him from calling for a duel 3) Loghain is an idiot who should be fighting if it's his only option at this point.

I prefer to believe number 2 but I believe Loghain came in that Landsmeet fully prepared for a fight if it didn't go his way (otherwise he ISN'T the great strategist/general everyone believes him to be).  Hence I would be willing to accept number 1 as an explanation too and I can see it as in character for him to have planned "an out" for himself.

[Wulfram]

The legal situation in the Landsmeet is confusing and I don't think we can speak clearly either way.  edit: but there's not enough evidence to call Eamon a hypocrit for resisting execution

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

If he was going to have her executed her anyway, why should he ask for her allegiance to Alistair?  Refusing serves nothing except to endanger Ferelden and encourage her execution.

So she wouldn't die a martyr? And for others not to claim that the rightful Queen was murdered, since most nobles hold her in high esteem?
If she renounces her claim, then she is no longer the Queen and can be executed with much less trouble.

If she renounces her claim and swears allegiance, executing her looks worse because there's no longer any real justification for it.  Whereas if she's defying the landsmeet and effectively threatening civil war, it's clearly justified..

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 novembre 2010 - 09:16 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

At which Loghain went ballistic, so no, I don't think he cares much for the tradition when Ferelden's security is on the line.

It's a slightly different scenario.
The duel with Meghren was completely and utterly pointless. A duel in the Landsmeet that can make you overrule a vote to your advantage is not pointless.

Uh, no, it certainly was not.  The rebels had been assaulting Fort Drakon with no success.  Maric saved lives by challenging the king to a duel, knowing his pride would not let him turn down the offer.

[KnightofPhoenix]

sylvanaerie wrote...
I hear that. 
As I said, we don't know enough about Ferelden law to know what Loghain's options are and him not calling for a duel and instead ranting might be his trying to 1) buy time/distract to allow his men time to get into position for a fight 2) be him pleading his case one last time allowing the Landsmeet to question the veracity of it because law keeps him from calling for a duel 3) Loghain is an idiot who should be fighting if it's his only option at this point.

I prefer to believe number 2 but I believe Loghain came in that Landsmeet fully prepared for a fight if it didn't go his way (otherwise he ISN'T the great strategist/general everyone believes him to be).  Hence I would be willing to accept number 1 as an explanation too and I can see it as in character for him to have planned "an out" for himself.

Maybe it's something between 1 and 2. Heck, I can't even see a bit of 3 too, Loghain becoming lost and not knowing what to do.
Eamon too apparently prepared for this anyways and had armed men in there.

Eh in any case, this went beyond my original point and is somewhat moot. Ferelden does not strike me as a country that understands the concept of the Rule of Law properly. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 novembre 2010 - 09:19 .

[Addai]

sylvanaerie wrote...
I prefer to believe number 2 but I believe Loghain came in that Landsmeet fully prepared for a fight if it didn't go his way (otherwise he ISN'T the great strategist/general everyone believes him to be).  Hence I would be willing to accept number 1 as an explanation too and I can see it as in character for him to have planned "an out" for himself.

I agree with you.  He didn't have those rows of soldiers with him for nothing.  For that matter, everyone was armed, so it was pretty much inevitable that there was going to be bloodshed, at the very least that the leaders of the respective sides of the civil war were going to end up executed depending on who won.

[sylvanaerie]

Agreed. As always, thanks for the debate KoP. It was most interesting !

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...

The legal situation in the Landsmeet is confusing and I don't think we can speak clearly either way.  edit: but there's not enough evidence to call Eamon a hypocrit for resisting execution

Even if it wasn't Loghain's right. Eamon could have at least attemtped to speak out and say it's illegal instead of going "Yaargh to war!!"
But granted, he is not the only one acting like that.

If she renounces her claim and swears allegiance, executing her looks worse because there's no longer any real justification for it.  Whereas if she's defying the landsmeet and effectively threatening civil war, it's clearly justified..

The justification being that she could be lying. This is not uncommon.
I know cases where someone was killed only after they renounce their claim completely, so as to avoid making a martyr out of him.

But eh, the entire Landsmeet is just badly written that we don't really know wth is going on. Orzammar's assembly is better written.

@ Addai
Point taken.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 novembre 2010 - 09:25 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

sylvanaerie wrote...

Agreed. As always, thanks for the debate KoP. It was most interesting !

And thank you for bearing with me

[Sarah1281]

Liliandra Nadiar wrote...

Her life may not have been in any danger, but her voice and freedoms might have been. True, she was most likely over exaggerating the situation, Eamon and Loghain both said she had a tendency toward dramatizing, but if Loghain knew his daughter was against him? She wouldn't be killed but I doubt she'd be seen outside the palace much if at all.

I agree. Anora says not to reveal her to anyone because it would be Howe's men (who would kill her) or her men (who would take her to her father). I think we can assume that if her own people would take her to Loghain then Loghain's people would certainly do so as well. She claims Loghain might kill her but I think it's more likely he would just keep her out of the way until the Landsmeet is over and then she'd either continue to be a puppet queen or be deposed. She needed to attend the Landsmeet and talk to you in order to try and keep the throne.

Cauthrien shows up and you decide to tell her all about Anora despite her telling you not to. As if Cauthrien knew that Anora was conspiring with Loghain's enemies she would certainly be forcibly escorted to the palace, she claims she's being kidnapped and flees. You can say that you had a good reason to tell on Anora (you don't think you can win, you don't want to kill Cauthrien for doing her job, you think Anora can make Cauthrien stand down, whatever) but you agree not to reveal her and you do so anyway. You betray her. Then when she denies any assocation with you, which can also be considered a betrayal, you hate her for it? If you had a good reason to betray her then she certainly had a good reason to betray you as well. If you betray her first, I don't think you really have a right to get outraged when she returns the favor.

[Wulfram]

Sarah1281 wrote...
 you agree not to reveal he

You do no such thing

[Zjarcal]

Wulfram wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
 you agree not to reveal he

You do no such thing

Hmm, you're right. She tells you not to reveal her but you never get a dialog option to agree.

[Sarah1281]

Wulfram wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
 you agree not to reveal he

You do no such thing

I feel that it is implied when Anora asks you not to reveal her that you agree not to reveal her. Or does your Warden say nothing and silently plot to throw her under a bus at the first inconvenience? 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sarah1281 wrote...
 Or does your Warden say nothing and silently plot to throw her under a bus at the first inconvenience? 

That actually should have been an option, especially if you're planing to put Alsitair on the throne. Eliminating Anora right there and then should have been possible. It might also weaken Loghain's claim, though Howe seems to think otherwise. 

However you agreeing with Anora is implicit, since the whole point of you going there is to save her and you don't have the option to get rid of her there. 

[sylvanaerie]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
 you agree not to reveal he

You do no such thing

I feel that it is implied when Anora asks you not to reveal her that you agree not to reveal her. Or does your Warden say nothing and silently plot to throw her under a bus at the first inconvenience? 

Is there really an option to literally TOSS her under a bus? There should be a mod for that !

It's implied you won't tell on her.  I never do, i always either turn myself in (or lately have been killing Cauthrian) cause 1) I really enjoy the Ft Drakon sequence 2) it feels SO good to tell her she WON"T have my support and I still waste her at the Landsmeet OR tell her she does and lie to her. (For some reason doing this without having first betrayed her is so much more satisfying for me)  And heck sometimes she DOES have my support just to be different and give Eamon the finger, knowing I put someone on the throne he can't influence.  Depends really on who pissed me off the most in my playthroughs.  Usually the ONLY thing I know when I start a game is who will be ruling at the end.  The rest I play "in the moment" never knowing WHAT my PC will do next

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 21 novembre 2010 - 09:46 .

[Wulfram]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...
 you agree not to reveal her

You do no such thing

I feel that it is implied when Anora asks you not to reveal her that you agree not to reveal her. Or does your Warden say nothing and silently plot to throw her under a bus at the first inconvenience? 

Well, all Anora really says is "It's better if I don't get captured by the people you're rescuing me from", a statement of such obviousness that my wardens probably can't think of a sufficiently polite response.

Trying the most promising route to try and get us out alive doesn't really constitute throwing her under a bus.

Modifié par Wulfram, 21 novembre 2010 - 09:48 .