267 réponses à ce sujet

[testing123]

Raelis25 wrote...
Then I'm not really sure what exactly we're disagreeing about. My point had nothing to do with Loghain at all, I merely objected to the idea of Sten's crime being considered 'forgivable',

It isn't the first time there has been a miscommunication on these boards.  I saw the line comparing the death of civilians to the death of the king and then went on a tangent.  My apologies. 

[atunnei]

Sten's crime is easily "forgivable" He was a warrior who was knocked unconscious. When he came to he was in a strange place without his sword, He demanded his sword and when the farmers couldn't produce it he lost it and killed them.



Based on what we learn of the Qunari personally the only thing unforgivable about his actions was he allowed himself to be captured.



If you think about what he had been taught from the time he was born, his actions are easily forgivable. I feel Loghain's "crimes" are forgivable also when you understand their actions. I can argue that Loghain knowingly leaving an incompetent king who only wished to have his story of glory in battle written for future generations to read wasn't a crime at all and the true crime is Eamon and the Warden attempting to put another incompetent king on the throne strictly to keep a bloodline going.



It's all perspective. Sten? Acted exactly like I would expect someone from his culture to react based on the situation. Is it right? Not at all. But find fault with the culture he was brought up in not the individuals actions.His actions are easily forgivable.

[TJPags]

atunnei wrote...

Sten's crime is easily "forgivable" He was a warrior who was knocked unconscious. When he came to he was in a strange place without his sword, He demanded his sword and when the farmers couldn't produce it he lost it and killed them.

Based on what we learn of the Qunari personally the only thing unforgivable about his actions was he allowed himself to be captured.

If you think about what he had been taught from the time he was born, his actions are easily forgivable. I feel Loghain's "crimes" are forgivable also when you understand their actions. I can argue that Loghain knowingly leaving an incompetent king who only wished to have his story of glory in battle written for future generations to read wasn't a crime at all and the true crime is Eamon and the Warden attempting to put another incompetent king on the throne strictly to keep a bloodline going.

It's all perspective. Sten? Acted exactly like I would expect someone from his culture to react based on the situation. Is it right? Not at all. But find fault with the culture he was brought up in not the individuals actions.His actions are easily forgivable.

Eamon wants to put Alistair on the throne, not the Warden.  I never crown him.  I'm fine witrh Anora as Queen.

Far as I see, neither Alistair (as an unrecognized bastard) nor Anora (not in the royal line) have a "right" to the throne, but both can be elected to the position - which is, after all, how Ferelden does it.

As for bloodline, it WAS very important in many medieval societies, so that's not a surprise or anything unexpected, IMO.

[Carmen_Willow]

kylecouch wrote...

CalJones wrote...

I don't see him as a regicide. As far as I'm concerned, the ogre killed Cailan. Loghain left, sure, but there's no assurance that Cailan could have been saved even if Loghain had charged. More to the point, Loghain advises Cailan against fighting on the front lines, which the young king ignores because he's after glory. When Loghain says "Cailan's death was his own doing," I must agree with him.
I am not saying that he is blameless, but that is one thing I don't pin on him (and I also think Fereldan is better off without that buffoon of a king in any case).

Indeed? I think he is more to blame then that. For instead of trying to persuade him that the battle is a bad idea to begin with and present other ideas, he simply "continues with the plan" as if he supports it. Then when the time comes basicly gives him the finger and walks away. He then comes back and declares himself in charge...thats a coup if ever I saw one.

Loghain committed the same sort of treason that the Stanleys did at Bosworth against Richard III.  They pretended to support their King and his battle plan and then left him hanging out to dry while they held back their troops. Then, the Stanley's surrounded Richard and helped to slay him. Northumberland  also "waited," although there is debate as to whether this was deliberate or not. But like the Stanleys, he failed to come to Richard's aid on the field.  It is the worst sort of treachery, the treachery with a smile  and an assurance of loyalty right up to the time of betrayal. 

Loghain created the battle plan....he knew exactly what he was doing. And the idea that he consented to do this because he didn't want Orleasians in country is a false premise.  I could have bought the idea that he really didn't plan to betray the king unless the battle was hopeless except for one little fact--He could have insisted that Cailan wait for Eamon's troops,.  But that isn't what Loghain wanted and it isn't what he did. He poisoned Eamon.  He didn't want anyone who might see through his strategy to murder the king and get away with it there on the battlefield.  Loghain had no intention of letting Cailan leave that battle alive.  If Cailan had been smart enough to stay out of the thick of things, Loghain would have had a plan B in mind.  He wanted Cailan dead, and he got what he wanted.

Despite this, my HN has spared Loghain in a past playthrough for one simple reason:  The most senior warden left alive in Ferelden tells her that there are compelling reasons to have as many wardens as possible alive for the final battle.  She's no fool.  She hears the things Riordan doesn't say in public.  Absent that, Loghain dies for being a traitor to the crown, not for killing Duncan.

My DN is even more likely to spare him, having no qualms about regicide (a well known method of advancement in her culture--just don't get caught).

[TheRevanchist]

Carmen_Willow wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

CalJones wrote...

I don't see him as a regicide. As far as I'm concerned, the ogre killed Cailan. Loghain left, sure, but there's no assurance that Cailan could have been saved even if Loghain had charged. More to the point, Loghain advises Cailan against fighting on the front lines, which the young king ignores because he's after glory. When Loghain says "Cailan's death was his own doing," I must agree with him.
I am not saying that he is blameless, but that is one thing I don't pin on him (and I also think Fereldan is better off without that buffoon of a king in any case).

Indeed? I think he is more to blame then that. For instead of trying to persuade him that the battle is a bad idea to begin with and present other ideas, he simply "continues with the plan" as if he supports it. Then when the time comes basicly gives him the finger and walks away. He then comes back and declares himself in charge...thats a coup if ever I saw one.

Loghain committed the same sort of treason that the Stanleys did at Bosworth against Richard III.  They pretended to support their King and his battle plan and then left him hanging out to dry while they held back their troops. Then, the Stanley's surrounded Richard and helped to slay him. Northumberland  also "waited," although there is debate as to whether this was deliberate or not. But like the Stanleys, he failed to come to Richard's aid on the field.  It is the worst sort of treachery, the treachery with a smile  and an assurance of loyalty right up to the time of betrayal. 

Loghain created the battle plan....he knew exactly what he was doing. And the idea that he consented to do this because he didn't want Orleasians in country is a false premise.  I could have bought the idea that he really didn't plan to betray the king unless the battle was hopeless except for one little fact--He could have insisted that Cailan wait for Eamon's troops,.  But that isn't what Loghain wanted and it isn't what he did. He poisoned Eamon.  He didn't want anyone who might see through his strategy to murder the king and get away with it there on the battlefield.  Loghain had no intention of letting Cailan leave that battle alive.  If Cailan had been smart enough to stay out of the thick of things, Loghain would have had a plan B in mind.  He wanted Cailan dead, and he got what he wanted.

Despite this, my HN has spared Loghain in a past playthrough for one simple reason:  The most senior warden left alive in Ferelden tells her that there are compelling reasons to have as many wardens as possible alive for the final battle.  She's no fool.  She hears the things Riordan doesn't say in public.  Absent that, Loghain dies for being a traitor to the crown, not for killing Duncan.

My DN is even more likely to spare him, having no qualms about regicide (a well known method of advancement in her culture--just don't get caught).

Indeed I couldn't care less that he killed Duncan...even though I thought Duncan was a bad ass...his crimes against the crown and the citizens of Ferelden are what seal his fate for me...as far as my regular HN is concerned he is a dead man walking for such things. But I also have a problem with him shifting the blame to the Grey Wardens when they are also victims of his games. 200 Grey Wardens and two dozen divisons of their calvery support troops were turned away at the border...do you know how helpful they would have been!? He devised the battle plan and didn't want reinforcements for obvious reasons. But if they had waited for those Wardens in addition to Eamon's troops I can bet the Blight would have ended at Ostagar without such high lose of life.

It also baffles me that people assume that he would not kill him on purpose simply because he was Maric and Rowan's son. That that fact alone makes him immune to purposeful betrayal on Loghains part.

Modifié par kylecouch, 28 décembre 2010 - 03:10 .

[Addai]

Persephone wrote...

jvee wrote...

Loghain is responsible for more than just the death of the king.  Neither Sten, nor Zevran, nor Jowan have the sort of power or influence in their decisions that Loghain has.  Everything he did affected lives on a macro scale. Beyond that, Sten shows some sense of remorse for what he did, he feels shame for his actions.  Loghain never admits that he did anything other than what was necessary.  If you actually feel that he committed crimes, it becomes more difficult to show mercy to the unrepentant.

You could argue that what Sten did was unforgivable, but the scale and the remorse are notably different.

He does show remorse. Lots of it. If you recruit him, that is.

(husband)

You don't even have to recruit him just be observant.   He goes from being one of the biggest haranguing blowhards to not making a peep when Alistiair is having his tantram about how he must be executed.  All you have to do is pay attention to the contrast in his behavior to realize that what he did is now sinking in....

[Addai]

 Loghain had no intention of letting Cailan leave that battle alive.  If Cailan had been smart enough to stay out of the thick of things, Loghain would have had a plan B in mind.  He wanted Cailan dead, and he got what he wanted.

(husband)

I think the game cut scenes easily give that impression but recent Word of God (David Gaider) contradicts this premise.

Modifié par Addai67, 28 décembre 2010 - 10:20 .

[nos_astra]

Addai67 wrote...
(husband)

You don't even have to recruit him just be observant.   He goes from being one of the biggest haranguing blowhards to not making a peep when Alistiair is having his tantram about how he must be executed.  All you have to do is pay attention to the contrast in his behavior to realize that what he did is now sinking in....

Considering that everyone in the game is apathetic about things unless the writers specificially wanted them to say or do anything, this is not much of a hint. You can do a lot of things that should cause an outcry of agony or rage and no one bats an eyelash.

It's more like "I have a vision of what the character must be thinking and so I interpret his words/actions or the lack thereof exactly the way it makes sense to me".

[Addai]

klarabella wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
(husband)

You don't even have to recruit him just be observant.   He goes from being one of the biggest haranguing blowhards to not making a peep when Alistiair is having his tantram about how he must be executed.  All you have to do is pay attention to the contrast in his behavior to realize that what he did is now sinking in....

Considering that everyone in the game is apathetic about things unless the writers specificially wanted them to say or do anything, this is not much of a hint. You can do a lot of things that should cause an outcry of agony or rage and no one bats an eyelash.

It's more like "I have a vision of what the character must be thinking and so I interpret his words/actions or the lack thereof exactly the way it makes sense to me".

(husband)


It is a great argument if you have studied and appreciate psychology especially social psychology.   It is the most extreme example of "the Contrast Principle" you will ever see.

www.takebackyourbrain.com/2007/the-psychology-of-persuasion-perceptual-contrast/


And I would say it is a false analogy to compare it to the other apathetic behavior of the NPCs which are not directly analogs (because they do not immediately follow a long sharp denuciation of something)   The only real direct equivalent of this in game would have been If Alistair would shut up in his own tirade if you made successful persuasion or imitidation check.   And do you know how powerful a message that would be of the PCs influence (calling for even more cries of Mary Sueism than what already exist in game).

Modifié par Addai67, 28 décembre 2010 - 10:57 .

[Persephone]

kylecouch wrote...

Carmen_Willow wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

CalJones wrote...

I don't see him as a regicide. As far as I'm concerned, the ogre killed Cailan. Loghain left, sure, but there's no assurance that Cailan could have been saved even if Loghain had charged. More to the point, Loghain advises Cailan against fighting on the front lines, which the young king ignores because he's after glory. When Loghain says "Cailan's death was his own doing," I must agree with him.
I am not saying that he is blameless, but that is one thing I don't pin on him (and I also think Fereldan is better off without that buffoon of a king in any case).

Indeed? I think he is more to blame then that. For instead of trying to persuade him that the battle is a bad idea to begin with and present other ideas, he simply "continues with the plan" as if he supports it. Then when the time comes basicly gives him the finger and walks away. He then comes back and declares himself in charge...thats a coup if ever I saw one.

Loghain committed the same sort of treason that the Stanleys did at Bosworth against Richard III.  They pretended to support their King and his battle plan and then left him hanging out to dry while they held back their troops. Then, the Stanley's surrounded Richard and helped to slay him. Northumberland  also "waited," although there is debate as to whether this was deliberate or not. But like the Stanleys, he failed to come to Richard's aid on the field.  It is the worst sort of treachery, the treachery with a smile  and an assurance of loyalty right up to the time of betrayal. 

Loghain created the battle plan....he knew exactly what he was doing. And the idea that he consented to do this because he didn't want Orleasians in country is a false premise.  I could have bought the idea that he really didn't plan to betray the king unless the battle was hopeless except for one little fact--He could have insisted that Cailan wait for Eamon's troops,.  But that isn't what Loghain wanted and it isn't what he did. He poisoned Eamon.  He didn't want anyone who might see through his strategy to murder the king and get away with it there on the battlefield.  Loghain had no intention of letting Cailan leave that battle alive.  If Cailan had been smart enough to stay out of the thick of things, Loghain would have had a plan B in mind.  He wanted Cailan dead, and he got what he wanted.

Despite this, my HN has spared Loghain in a past playthrough for one simple reason:  The most senior warden left alive in Ferelden tells her that there are compelling reasons to have as many wardens as possible alive for the final battle.  She's no fool.  She hears the things Riordan doesn't say in public.  Absent that, Loghain dies for being a traitor to the crown, not for killing Duncan.

My DN is even more likely to spare him, having no qualms about regicide (a well known method of advancement in her culture--just don't get caught).

Indeed I couldn't care less that he killed Duncan...even though I thought Duncan was a bad ass...his crimes against the crown and the citizens of Ferelden are what seal his fate for me...as far as my regular HN is concerned he is a dead man walking for such things. But I also have a problem with him shifting the blame to the Grey Wardens when they are also victims of his games. 200 Grey Wardens and two dozen divisons of their calvery support troops were turned away at the border...do you know how helpful they would have been!? He devised the battle plan and didn't want reinforcements for obvious reasons. But if they had waited for those Wardens in addition to Eamon's troops I can bet the Blight would have ended at Ostagar without such high lose of life.

It also baffles me that people assume that he would not kill him on purpose simply because he was Maric and Rowan's son. That that fact alone makes him immune to purposeful betrayal on Loghains part.

You do realize that it's more due to the Warden's delayed signal and bigger enemy forces that both Duncan and Cailan die? They die seconds after Loghain gave the order to leave. He would have had to charge at the speed of light to save them both. Cailan I do not mourn at all. Men who not only cheat on their wives but plan to ditch them to marry someone more *glorious*...UGH. And by doing so, he is selling out his own country. Ferelden is lucky to be rid of this king, harsh as that may sound.

As for the Orlesian Wardens and their troops, they were turned away for good reasons...at the time.

And the Blight would not have ended at Ostagar because of a handful more troops... Archie was still underground with thousands of DS.

Not immune but far less likely. Do you know his history with both Maric and Rowan?

[Persephone]

Addai67 wrote...

 Loghain had no intention of letting Cailan leave that battle alive.  If Cailan had been smart enough to stay out of the thick of things, Loghain would have had a plan B in mind.  He wanted Cailan dead, and he got what he wanted.

(husband)

I think the game cut scenes easily give that impression but recent Word of God (David Gaider) contradicts this premise.

As well as him URGING Cailan not to risk himself? Would it not have been much easier to encourage the brat if he wanted him dead?

[Addai]

As well as him URGING Cailan not to risk himself? Would it not have been much easier to encourage the brat if he wanted him dead?


(husband)

I think the typical argument though is that he intended to quietly arrest or assinate Cailan when he proposed Cailan tag along with him.    But  his saying the ominous sounding "a glorious day for us all line", he basically sounds like he is wishing or plotting evil.   Something that even TV tropes labeled as an example of "The Devil in plain sight".

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DevilInPlainSight


It's just that WOG confirms that this is not so.   This is just Loghain being a very grim deapan snarker.

Modifié par Addai67, 28 décembre 2010 - 01:49 .

[Persephone]

Addai67 wrote...

As well as him URGING Cailan not to risk himself? Would it not have been much easier to encourage the brat if he wanted him dead?


(husband)

I think the typical argument though is that he intended to quietly arrest or assinate Cailan when he proposed Cailan tag along with him.    But  his saying the ominous sounding "a glorious day for us all line", he basically sounds like he is wishing or plotting evil.   Something that even TV tropes labeled as an example of "The Devil in plain sight".

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DevilInPlainSight


It's just that WOG confirms that this is not so.   This is just Loghain being a very grim deapan snarker.

That. And he is already weighing his options there, I believe. Not deciding. Merely going through all the possible scenarios in his head. I could be wrong, of course. I never much liked the War Council scene. It lacks subtlety and Cailan just annoys me so bloody much. "See? Glory for everyone!" GAH!

[nos_astra]

The scene doesn't work for the kind of character Gaider wants Loghain to be (now). As we have discussed before, the VO notes reveal what information the voice actor was working with.

And everyone who interpreted the scene as "he's going to betray the king" is doing this with good reason. The voice actor did a good job.

Modifié par klarabella, 28 décembre 2010 - 03:12 .

[TheRevanchist]

Persephone wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Carmen_Willow wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

CalJones wrote...

I don't see him as a regicide. As far as I'm concerned, the ogre killed Cailan. Loghain left, sure, but there's no assurance that Cailan could have been saved even if Loghain had charged. More to the point, Loghain advises Cailan against fighting on the front lines, which the young king ignores because he's after glory. When Loghain says "Cailan's death was his own doing," I must agree with him.
I am not saying that he is blameless, but that is one thing I don't pin on him (and I also think Fereldan is better off without that buffoon of a king in any case).

Indeed? I think he is more to blame then that. For instead of trying to persuade him that the battle is a bad idea to begin with and present other ideas, he simply "continues with the plan" as if he supports it. Then when the time comes basicly gives him the finger and walks away. He then comes back and declares himself in charge...thats a coup if ever I saw one.

Loghain committed the same sort of treason that the Stanleys did at Bosworth against Richard III.  They pretended to support their King and his battle plan and then left him hanging out to dry while they held back their troops. Then, the Stanley's surrounded Richard and helped to slay him. Northumberland  also "waited," although there is debate as to whether this was deliberate or not. But like the Stanleys, he failed to come to Richard's aid on the field.  It is the worst sort of treachery, the treachery with a smile  and an assurance of loyalty right up to the time of betrayal. 

Loghain created the battle plan....he knew exactly what he was doing. And the idea that he consented to do this because he didn't want Orleasians in country is a false premise.  I could have bought the idea that he really didn't plan to betray the king unless the battle was hopeless except for one little fact--He could have insisted that Cailan wait for Eamon's troops,.  But that isn't what Loghain wanted and it isn't what he did. He poisoned Eamon.  He didn't want anyone who might see through his strategy to murder the king and get away with it there on the battlefield.  Loghain had no intention of letting Cailan leave that battle alive.  If Cailan had been smart enough to stay out of the thick of things, Loghain would have had a plan B in mind.  He wanted Cailan dead, and he got what he wanted.

Despite this, my HN has spared Loghain in a past playthrough for one simple reason:  The most senior warden left alive in Ferelden tells her that there are compelling reasons to have as many wardens as possible alive for the final battle.  She's no fool.  She hears the things Riordan doesn't say in public.  Absent that, Loghain dies for being a traitor to the crown, not for killing Duncan.

My DN is even more likely to spare him, having no qualms about regicide (a well known method of advancement in her culture--just don't get caught).

Indeed I couldn't care less that he killed Duncan...even though I thought Duncan was a bad ass...his crimes against the crown and the citizens of Ferelden are what seal his fate for me...as far as my regular HN is concerned he is a dead man walking for such things. But I also have a problem with him shifting the blame to the Grey Wardens when they are also victims of his games. 200 Grey Wardens and two dozen divisons of their calvery support troops were turned away at the border...do you know how helpful they would have been!? He devised the battle plan and didn't want reinforcements for obvious reasons. But if they had waited for those Wardens in addition to Eamon's troops I can bet the Blight would have ended at Ostagar without such high lose of life.

It also baffles me that people assume that he would not kill him on purpose simply because he was Maric and Rowan's son. That that fact alone makes him immune to purposeful betrayal on Loghains part.

You do realize that it's more due to the Warden's delayed signal and bigger enemy forces that both Duncan and Cailan die? They die seconds after Loghain gave the order to leave. He would have had to charge at the speed of light to save them both. Cailan I do not mourn at all. Men who not only cheat on their wives but plan to ditch them to marry someone more *glorious*...UGH. And by doing so, he is selling out his own country. Ferelden is lucky to be rid of this king, harsh as that may sound.

As for the Orlesian Wardens and their troops, they were turned away for good reasons...at the time.

And the Blight would not have ended at Ostagar because of a handful more troops... Archie was still underground with thousands of DS.

Not immune but far less likely. Do you know his history with both Maric and Rowan?

Yes...I do know their history with Loghain...I have read TsT...which is why I say the notion that he is magicly protected from this because of this fact alone is foolish.  He is there son...not the people themselves. The Warden's delaying the signal was obviously not intentional but his paranoiya made him believe it was on purpose. Secondly there is no good reason to turn away the Orlaisn Warden's. Turning away the Chevaliers? understandable...turning away the Wardens? unaccetable. I have already stated twice why the Warden's are not evil if you wish to ignore that then thats your choice. Him leaving Anora was due to the fact an heir to the throne was needed and was trying to solve the problem without realizeing what the problem might be, such things are typical of royalty in medhevil societys. I will agree that cheating on her to begin with is pretty low...however from what we know abour Anora she don't seem the type to particularly like sex to begin with.

[TheRevanchist]

Addai67 wrote...

As well as him URGING Cailan not to risk himself? Would it not have been much easier to encourage the brat if he wanted him dead?


(husband)

I think the typical argument though is that he intended to quietly arrest or assinate Cailan when he proposed Cailan tag along with him.    But  his saying the ominous sounding "a glorious day for us all line", he basically sounds like he is wishing or plotting evil.   Something that even TV tropes labeled as an example of "The Devil in plain sight".

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DevilInPlainSight


It's just that WOG confirms that this is not so.   This is just Loghain being a very grim deapan snarker.

The Maker (Mr Gaider) said that what he stated about Loghain was his personal opinion...not something to be taken as fact. He did not write Loghain in Origins so Loghain's motives are not entierly up to him. He said people are free to interpret his motives however they wish. He simply thought in his own personal opinion that Loghain had considered leaving Cailen...but did not make that choice until the becon was lit. He also reinforced this was an opinion and not a hard fact.

[TheRevanchist]

Secondly...how would Loghain know if there were too many Darkspawn on the field if he needed to rely on a becon to tell him when to attack? If he was close enough to the field to see the battle and the enemys numbers...he would not have needed the becon to know when he needed to attack since he is such a great General. Thirdly...how would he even know the becon lighting was late? The only way he could know was if he saw the signal for the becon to be lit...and then refuse to act. Either that or a "count down" was planned and he once again ignored the chance once the time expired. If all of this was accounted for there was no reason for him to wait for the becon considering he knew the battle was lost without his troops. The point here is no matter if he saw the battle or not...there is plenty of evidence to support the fact he never intended to respond even if the becon was on time.

[nos_astra]

kylecouch wrote...
Secondly...how would Loghain know if there were too many Darkspawn on the field if he needed to rely on a becon to tell him when to attack?

It's not impossible. KnightofPhoenix has made a copy of the battle plan and pointed out how he would be able to see the Darkspawn coming in but not the front lines.

It's still kind of weird, considering that Ostagar was chosen as a battlefield for it's excellent, defensible position, that holding such a position would be a matter of hours or days, not one hour. It's also strange why an unbeatable horde of Darkspawn at Ostagar (something no one has ever seen in their lifetime) becomes a non-issue after it is left alone (although it spreads up to the Western Hills according to Arl Wulff).

[TheRevanchist]

klarabella wrote...

kylecouch wrote...
Secondly...how would Loghain know if there were too many Darkspawn on the field if he needed to rely on a becon to tell him when to attack?

It's not impossible. KnightofPhoenix has made a copy of the battle plan and pointed out how he would be able to see the Darkspawn coming in but not the front lines.

It's still kind of weird, considering that Ostagar was chosen as a battlefield for it's excellent, defensible position, that holding such a position would be a matter of hours or days, not one hour. It's also strange why an unbeatable horde of Darkspawn at Ostagar (something no one has ever seen in their lifetime) becomes a non-issue after it is left alone (although it spreads up to the Western Hills according to Arl Wulff).

Thats another thing that I don't get...Ostagar is like DA's Thermopoly...Leonidas sure as hell lasted longer then an hour against "a million" Persans. Theres no way in hell theres over a million Darkspawn...if there was the victory should be immpossible even with half of Thedas involved. Let alone a group of rag tag people one person gets with treatys.

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...
It's still kind of weird, considering that Ostagar was chosen as a battlefield for it's excellent, defensible position, that holding such a position would be a matter of hours or days, not one hour.

Thing is Ostagar is designed to deal with wilders and while it is a defensible position, there is no fortifications in the valley itself (other than a wooden wall). Plus, if Ancient Tevinter is based on Rome or ancient Greece (I say that because the title Archon is Greek), their tactics and battle formations would be more capable of defending the chokepoint than the semi-civilized Fereldens whose charge served no purpose at all except for cinematic effect.

I don't know if the charge was part of the plan Loghain had in mind, or if it was Cailan's bright idea. In either case, it was stupid and kind of destroys the purpose.

klarabella wrote...
It's also strange why an unbeatable horde of Darkspawn at Ostagar (something no one has ever seen in their lifetime) becomes a non-issue after it is left alone (although it spreads up to the Western Hills according to Arl Wulff).

It only does so after you finish the last treaty quest. For the most part, it remains contained around Lothering and then explodes.

[KnightofPhoenix]

kylecouch wrote...

Thats another thing that I don't get...Ostagar is like DA's Thermopoly...Leonidas sure as hell lasted longer then an hour against "a million" Persans. 

One word for that.
Phalanx.

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Thing is Ostagar is designed to deal with wilders and while it is a defensible position, there is no fortifications in the valley itself (other than a wooden wall). Plus, if Ancient Tevinter is based on Rome or ancient Greece (I say that because the title Archon is Greek), their tactics and battle formations would be more capable of defending the chokepoint than the semi-civilized Fereldens whose charge served no purpose at all except for cinematic effect.

A nation descending from warlords should know a bit about warfare. Maybe they wouldn't stand a chance against Orlais or Tevinter, but against an unorganized Darkspawn horde? Ferelden wouldn't be worth saving if they can't hold out against mere beasts.

Modifié par klarabella, 28 décembre 2010 - 08:31 .

[testing123]

Addai67 wrote...
(husband)

You don't even have to recruit him just be observant.   He goes from being one of the biggest haranguing blowhards to not making a peep when Alistiair is having his tantram about how he must be executed.  All you have to do is pay attention to the contrast in his behavior to realize that what he did is now sinking in....

His silence does not equal remorse.  That's a silly argument.  As silly as assuming someone's silence equals agreement.  Nevertheless, I will clarify my earlier point.  There is a line, right at the end, that certainly points to Loghain feeling remorseful.  However, I don't think he actually regrets any of his actions, only their consequences, which is kind of essential to repentance for me.

[Carmen_Willow]

[quote]Addai67 wrote...

[quote]Persephone wrote...

[quote]jvee wrote...

Loghain is responsible for more than just the death of the king.  Neither Sten, nor Zevran, nor Jowan have the sort of power or influence in their decisions that Loghain has.  Everything he did affected lives on a macro scale. Beyond that, Sten shows some sense of remorse for what he did, he feels shame for his actions.  Loghain never admits that he did anything other than what was necessary.  If you actually feel that he committed crimes, it becomes more difficult to show mercy to the unrepentant.

You could argue that what Sten did was unforgivable, but the scale and the remorse are notably different.

[/quote]

He does show remorse. Lots of it. If you recruit him, that is.

[/quote]

I did recruit him and take him to Ostagar because someone on the boards that would give better insight into him.  I must say that when we came on Cailan's body, his response as to what to do with Cailan gave me a great deal of insight.  It was clear to me at that point that Loghain's hatred of Cailan was real, bitter, deep and personal....very personal. 

No one, except someone who personally hated Cailan with a passion would have suggested what he suggested.  Good or bad, this was their dead king hanging on that scaffold.  You would afford his body the respect due the King of Ferelden if for no other reason....unless of course, you really really hated him.

Having read the novels, I believe that Loghain had very strong motives to hate Cailan.  Cailan's father was sleeping with the woman Loghain wanted as his mate.  The data show that a large portion of homicides are committed over mate poaching...and the data show that stepchildren are much more likely to be injured or killed by males than natural children are. In the wild, the murder of offspring of former males controlling a pride or herd is very common.  The amazing thing is that humans usually can override this instinct and be good stepparents (althought "wicked stepmothers" comes to mind here).

Loghain loved Maric and Rowan both...enough to make hurting them directly unthinkable in his eyes.  But I suspect that the rage over having to relinquish Rowan was huge if suppressed. 

Loghain loved the parents enough to stay his hand against his best friend but he had no such feeling to keep him from destroying their offspring, particularly when his own child's future was threatened.  That kind of rage is very primal.  In my view, Cailan was a dead man the minute Loghain found out he might divorce his daughter. Loghain acted "in loco parentis" to Cailan when Maric died -- a stepfather you might say. Once Anora's future was threatened,  Loghain had no reason to be a good "stepfather." 

I know David Gaider doesn't feel that Loghain really had "malice aforethought;" however, I have to go by the way it's handled in the game (without reading the stuff that never made it to the screen).  He had the motive, means and opportunity to get rid of the kid who was threatening his own child (and who was a constant reminder that he couldn't have the girl he wanted). The rest is Ferelden history.