267 réponses à ce sujet

[testing123]

Persephone wrote...
In that he is no different than most of Ferelden. Watch how elves are treated. The Alienage being purged is acceptable. Women being abducted to be raped&killed...no one interferes or cares. Watch how Nan treats the servants at Castle Cousland.

If you read in the codex about the Orlesian occupation one of the most heinous charges against Orlais is that they sold Fereldans into slavery.  The fact that the most renowned hero of that rebellion eventually turned to selling citizens to fund his own war is bitterly amusing.

I actually don't think that Loghain shares the majority of Ferelden's view on elves.  In the book, Loghain leads a squad of elves during the rebellion to great effect.  Perhaps he chose the alienage for sacrifice because he knew that it would be the most willingly accepted martyr for his cause, but I don't think he was personally fueled by a distaste for elves.

[KnightofPhoenix]

jvee wrote...
If you read in the codex about the Orlesian occupation one of the most heinous charges against Orlais is that they sold Fereldans into slavery.  The fact that the most renowned hero of that rebellion eventually turned to selling citizens to fund his own war is bitterly amusing.

A superficial comparision that completely ignores the vast difference in context in both situations. 

If the Orlesians were selling Ferelden citizens to fight off an existential threat and not for their greed, then the comparision would be valid. As it stands now however, the comparision is weak and more sentimental than logical. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 décembre 2010 - 10:01 .

[TheRevanchist]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jvee wrote...
If you read in the codex about the Orlesian occupation one of the most heinous charges against Orlais is that they sold Fereldans into slavery.  The fact that the most renowned hero of that rebellion eventually turned to selling citizens to fund his own war is bitterly amusing.

A superficial comparision that completely ignores the vast difference in context in both situations. 

If the Orlesians were selling Ferelden citizens to fight off an existential threat and not for their greed, then the comparision would be valid. As it stands now however, the comparision is weak and more sentimental than logical. 

Pure speculation...for all we know they was useing those slaves to fund their war with Nevarra. After all during that time Orlais had control of both Nevaraa and Ferelden. We can't say as a matter of fact that greed was the only purpose. Secondly I don't doing it for such a purpose makes it any more acceptable.

[Sarah1281]

kylecouch wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jvee wrote...
If you read in the codex about the Orlesian occupation one of the most heinous charges against Orlais is that they sold Fereldans into slavery.  The fact that the most renowned hero of that rebellion eventually turned to selling citizens to fund his own war is bitterly amusing.

A superficial comparision that completely ignores the vast difference in context in both situations. 

If the Orlesians were selling Ferelden citizens to fight off an existential threat and not for their greed, then the comparision would be valid. As it stands now however, the comparision is weak and more sentimental than logical. 

Pure speculation...for all we know they was useing those slaves to fund their war with Nevarra. After all during that time Orlais had control of both Nevaraa and Ferelden. We can't say as a matter of fact that greed was the only purpose. Secondly I don't doing it for such a purpose makes it any more acceptable.

I think the fact that Loghain believed that the elves could not be saved and that everyone in Ferelden would die if he didn't win including the Alienage elves made it a bit more acceptable than the Orlesians using the slaves for - at most - funding a war of conquest.

[KnightofPhoenix]

kylecouch wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jvee wrote...
If you read in the codex about the Orlesian occupation one of the most heinous charges against Orlais is that they sold Fereldans into slavery.  The fact that the most renowned hero of that rebellion eventually turned to selling citizens to fund his own war is bitterly amusing.

A superficial comparision that completely ignores the vast difference in context in both situations. 

If the Orlesians were selling Ferelden citizens to fight off an existential threat and not for their greed, then the comparision would be valid. As it stands now however, the comparision is weak and more sentimental than logical. 

Pure speculation...for all we know they was useing those slaves to fund their war with Nevarra. After all during that time Orlais had control of both Nevaraa and Ferelden. We can't say as a matter of fact that greed was the only purpose. Secondly I don't doing it for such a purpose makes it any more acceptable.

If controlling Ferelden is integral to the survival of Orlais, then they wouldn't have stopped after the River Dane, which only cost them 2 legions. The fact that they stopped caring about Ferelden and left Meghren to fend for himself shows that it's not vital to their interests and survival.

Even if their purpose was to fund a war against Nevarra, in other words to fund another occupation, it's still a different situation from what Loghain has to face. Which is an existential threat.

And your beliefs are your own and you are entitled to them. I strongly disagree.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 26 décembre 2010 - 11:25 .

[TheRevanchist]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jvee wrote...
If you read in the codex about the Orlesian occupation one of the most heinous charges against Orlais is that they sold Fereldans into slavery.  The fact that the most renowned hero of that rebellion eventually turned to selling citizens to fund his own war is bitterly amusing.

A superficial comparision that completely ignores the vast difference in context in both situations. 

If the Orlesians were selling Ferelden citizens to fight off an existential threat and not for their greed, then the comparision would be valid. As it stands now however, the comparision is weak and more sentimental than logical. 

Pure speculation...for all we know they was useing those slaves to fund their war with Nevarra. After all during that time Orlais had control of both Nevaraa and Ferelden. We can't say as a matter of fact that greed was the only purpose. Secondly I don't doing it for such a purpose makes it any more acceptable.

If controlling Ferelden is integral to the survival of Orlais, then they wouldn't have stopped after the River Dane, which only cost them 2 legions. The fact that they stopped caring about Ferelden and left Meghren to fend for himself shows that it's not vital to their interests and survival.

Even if their purpose was to fund a war against Nevarra, in other words to fund another occupation, it's still a different situation from what Loghain has to face. Which is an existential threat.

And your beliefs are your own and you are entitled to them. I strongly disagree.

While it's true it clearly wasn't something they needed to protect Orlais it could have simply helped. But I don't see selling elves as slaves simply because they are a "lost cause" is a viable argument...they can simply evacuate them somewhere else. I find it hard to believe hatred for elves is so deep they will still keep them locked up inside that tiny little space when souless monsters are on the horizen. And if it is...then what the hell did the elves do to possibly deserve such treatment? Because everything I know about elves is simply "humans hate them because they didn't worship the Maker so they forced them or killed them." I highly doubt you personaly would sell the population of a minority in whatever country you hail from simply because they were "lost cause" into slavery to thwart an invasion since they can simply be moved to a more defendable location...regardless of the reasons I find it cruel and unforgiveable.

Modifié par kylecouch, 27 décembre 2010 - 12:19 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

kylecouch wrote...
I highly doubt you personaly would sell the population of a minority in whatever country you hail from simply because they were "lost cause" into slavery to thwart an invasion since they can simply be moved to a more defendable location...regardless of the reasons I find it cruel and unforgiveable.

For the greater good, I would.  Not because they are a lost cause. But because my country would be a lost cause if nothing was done. War demands sacrifices. Those sacrificed may not "deserve" it, but that would be the least of my concerns when much more lives are at stake.  Much more horrible things have been done in the name of survival.

And I know where this argument will lead. It will lead us back to square one and the assumption that it was Loghain who single handedely started the disaster in the first place and yaddi yadda. To avoid the dread wheel, point is, by that time he recognized the threat of the blight and selling the elves was for that purpose. Which I find perfectly acceptable.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 décembre 2010 - 12:32 .

[Zjarcal]

kylecouch wrote...
...regardless of the reasons I find it cruel and unforgiveable.

Personally I find it cruel and unacceptable, no matter if it's being done for the greater good, but depending on the character I'm playing, it may be forgivable.

Some of my characters do find it in them to forgive him for it, my HN (canon character) and my Dalish. Others (my CE in particular) don't.

I have always hated the fact that Loghain allowed the enslavement of those elves, but at least his motive was a good one. Still, that doesn't convince my CE to just toss aside the fact that her father was one of those enslaved.

Regarding the OP's question, the way I roleplay my HNF, she has admired Loghain all her life. She views him as the perfect example of why being a noble does not equal being superior (yes, she's an anti-noble noble). This admiration plays a big part in her reasoning to spare him.

She doesn't approve of most of his actions post-Ostagar, but by the time he yields, she remembers the hero Loghain was at one time and having given so many others a chance to redeem themselves (Sten, Jowan, the Blood Mage in the tower), she can't help but give the man she has admired her entire a life a chance at redemption. Obviously, her friendship with Alistair is destroyed, but c'est la vie.

Also, regarding the "hypocrisy" of denying Alistair his revenge, the murder of the Couslands can't be compared to Loghain quitting the field at Ostagar. As personal as it may be for Alistair, it's a completely different situation.

[TJPags]

Raelis25 wrote...


I understand where you're coming from, but did your Warden spare a child murderer, an assasin, or a Blood Mage who'd poisoned Arl Eamon? Where was the guarantee that all those people would not turn on you when it suited them? In that case you should not spare anyone because it's not worth the risk.

The child murderer acted out of madness, not intention.  The assisin was doing his job - and was, you know, hired by Howe with Loghain's okay.  The mage who poisoned Eamon was acting on orders of Loghain, and did so to save his own life.

None of them acted out of malice.  In 2 instances, to the extent there was malice, it was on the part of the one directing them.

I'm not so sure that looking at those 3 situations, and Loghain's, the same is the right way to go.

[USArmyParatrooper]

mousestalker wrote...

Loghain is the most respected military commander in Ferelden. He has followers who are devoted to him. He has a faction in the Landsmeet. His daughter loves him. None of the following has any impact in game, but all of it would apply to real world considerations.

If you want the absolute largest and best equipped army possible, you want to unite all of Ferelden and give it the best leadership possible, then sparing Loghain is the sensible plan, especially if he then becomes a Grey Warden. Your job as a Grey Warden is to stop the Blight. Not indulge in reprisals.

Howe was a divisive figure. He had no friends, one patron and many enemies. Killing him does not diminish your forces at all. It can only add to them.

Loghain is well regarded by many in Ferelden. His forces would not be at all enthusiastic about fighting for someone who had him killed. Some would fight, out of necessity. Some might very well scarper off to the Free Marches instead. You need his army.

From the perspective of getting the biggest and best army possible, I'd argue the best result is to have Alistair marry Anora and spare Loghain. That unites the country, settles the civil war and gets everyone pointed in the right direction. That it's not what Anora, Alistair and Loghain necessarily want is besides the point.

Even from a pragmatic standpoint IMO Loghain has to go. HE caused the division among the ranks and the civil war. He could have simply expressed his disapproval to King Cailan and been open about his refusal to participate in the upcoming battle. Instead he agreed to use his troops as the flanking element at the signal - knowing full well it was a big fat lie. He even went as far as to stage his troops in position so they could literally turn their backs on their brothers as they get slaughtered.

Point being - Sten had a momentary lapse of insanity and killed a family. Zevren was forced into a life of servitude as a child for an assassin clan he wanted nothing to do with. Loghain was single handedly responsible for the slaughter of King Cailan, the Grey Wardens, thousands of troops and he endangered all of Fereldan in the process. And let us not forget the human slave trafficing he was involved in.

But setting all of this aside, from a pragmatic standpoint Loghain cannot be trusted. He has already proved that in spades.

[Ymladdych]

Loghain is a perfect example of how "right" and "good" is subjective in this game.  As another poster wrote (very eloquently, I have to say), you can rationalize *any* RP position equally well if you just take an honest look at all the information presented in the game and decide what would be compelling and important to your character.

Is there tons of evidence that Loghain is an irredeemable schmuck, if that's what your character wants to believe?  Absolutely.  But we see just as much evidence to the contrary, or at the very least, tons of neutral evidence that's *very* open to interpretation one way or another.

Regardless, if you want to RP an HN who spares him, you'll probably first and foremost have to take the POV that Loghain's ties to the Couslands' demise were indirect and not really something he felt happy about.   You may want to take the position that your character thought he was *strategically* correct about Ostagar and still a talented, if paranoid general.  (Or *was* he paranoid?  In "Leliana's Song" the stolen documents might have kicked off another war because they revealed Orlesian military positions...positions that the Fereldens would have considered threatening, according the Reverend Mother.)

Another POV: maybe your PC is putting Anora on the throne (alone or with Alistair), and he/she thinks that it might not be a good idea for the Grey Wardens, with their weakened political position, to cut down the Queen's father and the country's war hero.  Plus, sparing him at that moment doesn't even mean that your character intends to let him live through the war, if he even makes it through the Joining, of course. 

Or, maybe your character sees the taint and Grey Warden lifestyle as a punishment worse than cutting him down quickly.  Something else to consider - maybe your character did intend to kill him, but Riordin stayed your PC's sword, and when he says, "There are...compelling reasons to have as many Grey Wardens on hand as possible," your character (*gasp!*) actually believes that the senior, more-experienced guy might know what he's talking about.

Modifié par Ymladdych, 27 décembre 2010 - 02:08 .

[Ymladdych]

Oh, and just as a passing FYI for the forumite who wanted the US ending and full customization: recent posts and interviews from the devs indicate that DA2 will support the US ending and Awakening/DLC choices. You'll still have to play Awakening/DLC's with your zombie warden, but the import process will overwrite the retcon defaults with your Origins choices and view all post-Origins content as being completed by the Orlesian warden.

This may or may not change your decision about Loghain, so I thought I'd mention it.

Modifié par Ymladdych, 27 décembre 2010 - 02:22 .

[testing123]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
A superficial comparision that completely ignores the vast difference in context in both situations. 

If the Orlesians were selling Ferelden citizens to fight off an existential threat and not for their greed, then the comparision would be valid. As it stands now however, the comparision is weak and more sentimental than logical. 

The comparison was one to illustrate how Loghain's own ideology led him to commit the same crimes as those he despises.  As such, it is valid.  Whether or not Loghain was justified is another matter.  Further, as kylecouch said, the only context for Orlesian slavery that we have is your conjecture; not evidence.  

[KnightofPhoenix]

jvee wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
A superficial comparision that completely ignores the vast difference in context in both situations. 

If the Orlesians were selling Ferelden citizens to fight off an existential threat and not for their greed, then the comparision would be valid. As it stands now however, the comparision is weak and more sentimental than logical. 

The comparison was one to illustrate how Loghain's own ideology led him to commit the same crimes as those he despises.  As such, it is valid.  Whether or not Loghain was justified is another matter.  Further, as kylecouch said, the only context for Orlesian slavery that we have is your conjecture; not evidence.  

What "idealogy"? Loghain has no idealogy. A better term maybe is Loghain's logic. Definitely not idealogy because I never saw him having any.
It's not valid because the context is drastically different. One may despise killing. But killing in one situation might be dramatically different from another. Sure, Loghain may dislike what he is doing. The comparison with Orlais however is weak and superficial at best.

I already replied to kyle's statement.
Were the Orlesians fighting a blight? If they were under mortal danger, that they need to exploit Ferelden, then why decide to abandon it and stop caring? Evidently, Orlais did not suffer much from its loss of Ferelden and as such, it and the salvery it practised there, were not crucial to its survival nor were they seen as such. So vastly different circumstances.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 décembre 2010 - 02:41 .

[Ryzaki]

Ah. Loghain thread.



Sparing Loghain is one of those decisions that make me chew on my lip. Because I really do see him as scum. Though there is plenty of evidence in game to the contrary. And I foundits easier to spare him if I play a HN who admired him as a child and grew up on stories about the Orlesian occupation.

[testing123]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
What "idealogy"? Loghain has no idealogy. A better term maybe is Loghain's logic. Definitely not idealogy because I never saw him having any.
It's not valid because the context is drastically different. One may despise killing. But killing in one situation might be dramatically different from another. Sure, Loghain may dislike what he is doing. The comparison with Orlais however is weak and superficial at best.

I already replied to kyle's statement.
Were the Orlesians fighting a blight? If they were under mortal danger, that they need to exploit Ferelden, then why decide to abandon it and stop caring? Evidently, Orlais did not suffer much from its loss of Ferelden and as such, it and the salvery it practised there, were not crucial to its survival nor were they seen as such. So vastly different circumstances.

'Sacrifices must be made for the greater good.'  'It's perfectly fine to do things that seem disgusting as long as my overarching goal is something I deem necessary.'  This is Loghain's ideology.  I'm sorry if you don't like the term, let's use 'logic' or 'principles' or 'credo' or something more to your taste.

Again, you have no idea why the Orlesians did what they did.  So every condemnation you place on them is ignorant.  I could toss the same logic right back at you.  If Alienage slavery is so necessary why was Ferelden still able to achieve victory after the Warden disrupts the trade?

[KnightofPhoenix]

jvee wrote...
Again, you have no idea why the Orlesians did what they did.  So every condemnation you place on them is ignorant.  I could toss the same logic right back at you.  If Alienage slavery is so necessary why was Ferelden still able to achieve victory after the Warden disrupts the trade?

We can surmise why the Orlesians did what they did. At the very least, we know they didn't consider it necessary, because they stopped caring about Ferelden.

The Warden won because he had his own army plus that of Loghain by the end. And luck. If the Archdemon was not stupid enough to show up, chances are he / she would have lost. 

[TheRevanchist]

Ymladdych wrote...

Oh, and just as a passing FYI for the forumite who wanted the US ending and full customization: recent posts and interviews from the devs indicate that DA2 will support the US ending and Awakening/DLC choices. You'll still have to play Awakening/DLC's with your zombie warden, but the import process will overwrite the retcon defaults with your Origins choices and view all post-Origins content as being completed by the Orlesian warden.

This may or may not change your decision about Loghain, so I thought I'd mention it.

Yes I had heard about that...but I was trying to make sure this isn't just a hopeful rumor.

[TheRevanchist]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

mousestalker wrote...

Loghain is the most respected military commander in Ferelden. He has followers who are devoted to him. He has a faction in the Landsmeet. His daughter loves him. None of the following has any impact in game, but all of it would apply to real world considerations.

If you want the absolute largest and best equipped army possible, you want to unite all of Ferelden and give it the best leadership possible, then sparing Loghain is the sensible plan, especially if he then becomes a Grey Warden. Your job as a Grey Warden is to stop the Blight. Not indulge in reprisals.

Howe was a divisive figure. He had no friends, one patron and many enemies. Killing him does not diminish your forces at all. It can only add to them.

Loghain is well regarded by many in Ferelden. His forces would not be at all enthusiastic about fighting for someone who had him killed. Some would fight, out of necessity. Some might very well scarper off to the Free Marches instead. You need his army.

From the perspective of getting the biggest and best army possible, I'd argue the best result is to have Alistair marry Anora and spare Loghain. That unites the country, settles the civil war and gets everyone pointed in the right direction. That it's not what Anora, Alistair and Loghain necessarily want is besides the point.

Even from a pragmatic standpoint IMO Loghain has to go. HE caused the division among the ranks and the civil war. He could have simply expressed his disapproval to King Cailan and been open about his refusal to participate in the upcoming battle. Instead he agreed to use his troops as the flanking element at the signal - knowing full well it was a big fat lie. He even went as far as to stage his troops in position so they could literally turn their backs on their brothers as they get slaughtered.

Point being - Sten had a momentary lapse of insanity and killed a family. Zevren was forced into a life of servitude as a child for an assassin clan he wanted nothing to do with. Loghain was single handedly responsible for the slaughter of King Cailan, the Grey Wardens, thousands of troops and he endangered all of Fereldan in the process. And let us not forget the human slave trafficing he was involved in.

But setting all of this aside, from a pragmatic standpoint Loghain cannot be trusted. He has already proved that in spades.

This. ^

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

jvee wrote...
Again, you have no idea why the Orlesians did what they did.  So every condemnation you place on them is ignorant.  I could toss the same logic right back at you.  If Alienage slavery is so necessary why was Ferelden still able to achieve victory after the Warden disrupts the trade?

We can surmise why the Orlesians did what they did. At the very least, we know they didn't consider it necessary, because they stopped caring about Ferelden.

The Warden won because he had his own army plus that of Loghain by the end. And luck. If the Archdemon was not stupid enough to show up, chances are he / she would have lost. 

Of course, maybe they already got what they needed from Ferelden - extra bodies, whatever resources they took, etc., or maybe they just realized there wasn't much there except slaves, and didn't consider it worth the cost.  So, perhaps continued Ferelden slaves were no longer necessary, but maybe they did need them in the beginning - or maybe that was just a nice bonus for them.

It really is all speculation about why Orlais invaded, why they sold Ferelden's as slaves, and how necessary it was.  It can validly be said that selling the elves into slavery was not necessary either.  Does it now become wrong?

[testing123]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

We can surmise why the Orlesians did what they did. At the very least, we know they didn't consider it necessary, because they stopped caring about Ferelden.

We can't.  Perhaps Orlais determined that Ferelden slavery was too costly and therefore it put pressure on other parts of the Orlesian empire.  Perhaps they had their own bout of good fortune and no longer needed the same funding in the war with Nevarra.  There are literally thousands of ways to fill in the blanks on what we don't know about the Orlesian empire's interaction with the rest of Thedas.

[KaiLyn]

IMO Loghain has to go. His stability and reliability are what is most in question in the mind of my HNF and CE - even Ser Cauthrien admits he has done terrible things. His assertion that Anora, as a "Therin," is somehow entitled to the throne is questionable at best and the fact that he accuses Eamon of putting Alistair on the throne as a puppet only serves to reveal that which he has already done. Finally, his River of Dane heroism aside, I can almost forgive his withdrawal at Ostagar as strategically sound but his actions against the Bannorn feel way too much like the Orlesians for my Warden, so when compounded with the fact his new "best friend" is Rendon Howe and he is selling off elves, it just isn't possible to let him live.

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...
It really is all speculation about why Orlais invaded, why they sold Ferelden's as slaves, and how necessary it was.  It can validly be said that selling the elves into slavery was not necessary either.  Does it now become wrong?

Orlais did not face a blight, nor a civil war, nor an existentialist threat. So different.
The point is not whether it's "right" or "wrong", I couldn't care less. The point is, what Loghain was facing was drastically different than Orlais.

jvee wrote...
We can't.  Perhaps Orlais determined
that Ferelden slavery was too costly and therefore it put pressure on
other parts of the Orlesian empire.  Perhaps they had their own bout of
good fortune and no longer needed the same funding in the war with
Nevarra.  There are literally thousands of ways to fill in the blanks on
what we don't know about the Orlesian empire's interaction with the
rest of Thedas.

Unless it's proven that Orlais was facing an existential threat, which I doubt, I will deem the comparision superficial.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 décembre 2010 - 03:26 .

[testing123]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Unless it's proven that Orlais was facing an existential threat, which I doubt, I will deem the comparision superficial.

You can deem it whatever you want.  The comparison wasn't for you.

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...
It really is all speculation about why Orlais invaded, why they sold Ferelden's as slaves, and how necessary it was.  It can validly be said that selling the elves into slavery was not necessary either.  Does it now become wrong?

Orlais did not face a blight, nor a civil war, nor an existentialist threat. So different.
The point is not whether it's "right" or "wrong", I couldn't care less. The point is, I THINK what Loghain was facing was drastically different than Orlais.

jvee wrote...
We can't.  Perhaps Orlais determined
that Ferelden slavery was too costly and therefore it put pressure on
other parts of the Orlesian empire.  Perhaps they had their own bout of
good fortune and no longer needed the same funding in the war with
Nevarra.  There are literally thousands of ways to fill in the blanks on
what we don't know about the Orlesian empire's interaction with the
rest of Thedas.

Unless it's proven that Orlais was facing an existential threat, which I doubt, then I will deem the comparision superficial.

Fixed.  Really, KoP, that's all there really is to it.  You feel that what Loghain did was acceptable in the circumstances.  Regardless of how I feel about that, it's your opinion, it's a valid one in many ways, and you're entitled to it.

But you have no idea what circumstances Orlais was facing when they invaded Ferelden.  You have no idea what motivated them to do so.  You have your opinion, your speculation, but there is no information (unless Gaider has said something I never saw) ro support any of your ideas in this regard.  TsT never gives you this information.  However, you take that lack of information and turn it into lack of justification.  That's not right.