764 réponses à ce sujet

[Wereparrot]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean Gaider's comments about Loghain? Here it is:

And noticably absent from any of that is even a hint that Logain's abandonment was anywhere in Cailan's plans.

Nevertheless, I think it a reasonable basis to form a theory on. And a basis constitutes some form of evidence for the resulting theory. Remember that Gaider was not responding to a question regarding the battleplan, therefore it remains open as to whether Cailan told Loghain to retreat if and when he deemed it neccessary.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Wereparrot wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean Gaider's comments about Loghain? Here it is:

And noticably absent from any of that is even a hint that Logain's abandonment was anywhere in Cailan's plans.

Nevertheless, I think it a reasonable basis to form a theory on. And a basis constitutes some form of evidence for the resulting theory. Remember that Gaider was not responding to a question regarding the battleplan, therefore it remains open as to whether Cailan told Loghain to retreat if and when he deemed it neccessary.

There IS no basis. It's 100% speculation with zero supporting evidence.

[Persephone]

Oh for the love of GOD, this again..........<_<

[Wereparrot]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean Gaider's comments about Loghain? Here it is:

And noticably absent from any of that is even a hint that Logain's abandonment was anywhere in Cailan's plans.

Nevertheless, I think it a reasonable basis to form a theory on. And a basis constitutes some form of evidence for the resulting theory. Remember that Gaider was not responding to a question regarding the battleplan, therefore it remains open as to whether Cailan told Loghain to retreat if and when he deemed it neccessary.

There IS no basis. It's 100% speculation with zero supporting evidence.

I really don't know how you can say it is no basis for a theory. Of course it is a basis to present a hitherto unprovable theory. Even speculation is based on something. Why can't you think for a moment that Cailan is not as incompetent as he is frequently accused of being? 
 

[USArmyParatrooper]

Wereparrot wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean Gaider's comments about Loghain? Here it is:

And noticably absent from any of that is even a hint that Logain's abandonment was anywhere in Cailan's plans.

Nevertheless, I think it a reasonable basis to form a theory on. And a basis constitutes some form of evidence for the resulting theory. Remember that Gaider was not responding to a question regarding the battleplan, therefore it remains open as to whether Cailan told Loghain to retreat if and when he deemed it neccessary.

There IS no basis. It's 100% speculation with zero supporting evidence.

I really don't know how you can say it is no basis for a theory. Of course it is a basis to present a hitherto unprovable theory. Even speculation is based on something. Why can't you think for a moment that Cailan is not as incompetent as he is frequently accused of being? 
 

I don't think Cailan is completely incompetent. In fact, I think if Loghain didn't leave with his tail between his legs they had a chance.

I can say there is no basis for your theory because there is no basis for your theory. It's essentially you making up your own back story.

[Wereparrot]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean Gaider's comments about Loghain? Here it is:

And noticably absent from any of that is even a hint that Logain's abandonment was anywhere in Cailan's plans.

Nevertheless, I think it a reasonable basis to form a theory on. And a basis constitutes some form of evidence for the resulting theory. Remember that Gaider was not responding to a question regarding the battleplan, therefore it remains open as to whether Cailan told Loghain to retreat if and when he deemed it neccessary.

There IS no basis. It's 100% speculation with zero supporting evidence.

I really don't know how you can say it is no basis for a theory. Of course it is a basis to present a hitherto unprovable theory. Even speculation is based on something. Why can't you think for a moment that Cailan is not as incompetent as he is frequently accused of being? 
 

I can say there is no basis for your theory because there is no basis for your theory. It's essentially you making up your own back story.

I say again; all theories, no matter how far-fetched and unprovable, are based on something. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it is baseless.

[lost lupus]

i dont know the fact he had no battle plan of his own?
the fact he didnt just fortify ostagar and hold the position till re-enforcements arrived?
the fact he was clearly seeking glory and was binded to what was going on? (loghain dogging him)
the fact he wanted to change stratrgy's (that had been working) for one single battle with the grey wardens by his side defeating the blight just like in storys he heard as a child wynne and her damned griffons

Modifié par lost lupus, 18 février 2011 - 03:39 .

[Wereparrot]

lost lupus wrote...

the fact he was clearly seeking glory and was binded to what was going on? (loghain dogging him)

That doesn't mean he didn't formulate a strategy involving Loghain's withdrawal after the war-meeting and that you know nothing of.

[USArmyParatrooper]

lost lupus wrote...

i dont know the fact he had no battle plan of his own?
the fact he didnt just fortify ostagar and hold the position till re-enforcements arrived?
the fact he was clearly seeking glory and was binded to what was going on? (loghain dogging him)
the fact he wanted to change stratrgy's (that had been working) for one single battle with the grey wardens by his side defeating the blight just like in storys he heard as a child wynne and her damned griffons

The king isn't supposed to be the chief military strategist. The chief military strategist (Loghain) quit the field on his own battleplan.
He did fortify Ostagar with reinforcements. How was he supposed to know the General of those forces would betray him? Ahhhh... he should have waited for the Orlesians, right? Yep, Loghain was all about that.
Both Loghain and Calain didn't take the blight seriously.
So you're saying he should have fought every battle using the same tactics? So you didn't like Loghain's battle strategy for the last battle? 
Obsessed with glory, that one is fair.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Wereparrot wrote...

lost lupus wrote...

the fact he was clearly seeking glory and was binded to what was going on? (loghain dogging him)

That doesn't mean he didn't formulate a strategy involving Loghain's withdrawal after the war-meeting and that you know nothing of.

Something not being disproved doesn't make it indicative of meaningful conversation about what happened. I mean, I can make up a "theory" that Loghain was secretly in bed with the Darkspawn the entire time. It can't be disproved and I can certainly tie it in with many things that took place, so shall we have a conversation about that? 

Or perhaps more constructive would be to talk about the things that actually happened.

[Wereparrot]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

lost lupus wrote...

the fact he was clearly seeking glory and was binded to what was going on? (loghain dogging him)

That doesn't mean he didn't formulate a strategy involving Loghain's withdrawal after the war-meeting and that you know nothing of.

Something not being disproved doesn't make it indicative of meaningful conversation about what happened.

It doesn't mean it isn't indicative either.
 

I mean, I can make up a "theory" that Loghain was secretly in bed with the Darkspawn the entire time. It can't be disproved and I can certainly tie it in with many things that took place, so shall we have a conversation about that? 

Or perhaps more constructive would be to talk about the things that actually happened.

The whole point of a theory is that it can't be proved either way, and I am free to speculate on what may or may not have happened that we don't know about based on what has previously been clarified. Just because we don't see it in-game doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Wereparrot wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

lost lupus wrote...

the fact he was clearly seeking glory and was binded to what was going on? (loghain dogging him)

That doesn't mean he didn't formulate a strategy involving Loghain's withdrawal after the war-meeting and that you know nothing of.

Something not being disproved doesn't make it indicative of meaningful conversation about what happened.

It doesn't mean it isn't indicative either.
 

I mean, I can make up a "theory" that Loghain was secretly in bed with the Darkspawn the entire time. It can't be disproved and I can certainly tie it in with many things that took place, so shall we have a conversation about that? 

Or perhaps more constructive would be to talk about the things that actually happened.

The whole point of a theory is that it can't be proved either way, and I am free to speculate on what may or may not have happened that we don't know about based on what has previously been clarified. Just because we don't see it in-game doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Then would you say the theory that Loghain was secretly working with the Darkspawn has just as much merit for discussion? 

[Wereparrot]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

lost lupus wrote...

the fact he was clearly seeking glory and was binded to what was going on? (loghain dogging him)

That doesn't mean he didn't formulate a strategy involving Loghain's withdrawal after the war-meeting and that you know nothing of.

Something not being disproved doesn't make it indicative of meaningful conversation about what happened.

It doesn't mean it isn't indicative either.
 

I mean, I can make up a "theory" that Loghain was secretly in bed with the Darkspawn the entire time. It can't be disproved and I can certainly tie it in with many things that took place, so shall we have a conversation about that? 

Or perhaps more constructive would be to talk about the things that actually happened.

The whole point of a theory is that it can't be proved either way, and I am free to speculate on what may or may not have happened that we don't know about based on what has previously been clarified. Just because we don't see it in-game doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Then would you say the theory that Loghain was secretly working with the Darkspawn has just as much merit for discussion? 

Of course. Why not? I mean you clearly have no interest in recognising my theory for what it is, but I'll do the courtesy of acknowledging yours as a possibility.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 18 février 2011 - 04:40 .

[JFarr74]

Can I please just have a direct answer?

[LobselVith8]

I spared Loghain. It's no different than giving Sten or Zevran a chance to atone for their mistakes. He's the Hero of River Dane, and he is respected by many people because he helped free Ferelden from the Orlesian occupation. Tying his legend to the Grey Wardens would only benefit the reputation of the Wardens in Ferelden, and possibly in other nations.

[USArmyParatrooper]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I spared Loghain. It's no different than giving Sten or Zevran a chance to atone for their mistakes. He's the Hero of River Dane, and he is respected by many people because he helped free Ferelden from the Orlesian occupation. Tying his legend to the Grey Wardens would only benefit the reputation of the Wardens in Ferelden, and possibly in other nations.

With Sten I would agree, although I think his crimes pale in comparison to Loghain's based on scale. Zevran was taken as a child and forced into servitude by the crows. So while Zev is still accountable for his actions, he at least has some type of defense.

On reputation I disagree. Loghain's actions as of late put a stain on his reputation. Some still follow him, but even before you out him for things like slavery in the Landsmeet many of the nobles had already turned against him. He is a divissive figure at best. I think a better rationale is the fact that the Wardens do accept criminals if their skills are useful.

[Addai]

JFarr74 wrote...

Can I please just have a direct answer?

You're expecting a definitive answer on one of the most hotly debated topics on the board?

[Addai]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
On reputation I disagree. Loghain's actions as of late put a stain on his reputation. Some still follow him, but even before you out him for things like slavery in the Landsmeet many of the nobles had already turned against him. He is a divissive figure at best. I think a better rationale is the fact that the Wardens do accept criminals if their skills are useful.

Several of the rumor/ gossip discussions say that the people are generally positive if you spare Loghain.  Obviously some of those he fought in the Bannorn are not going to be happy, and few but Anora visit his statue if she is made sole ruler and puts one up.  But since he loses his title and regency no matter what, the nobles seem happy enough to let him serve in the Wardens, and he still has popularity with the common people for his hero status.

[Giggles_Manically]

Those gossips are funny.



They end with people saying:

They should have just made that Grey Warden king/queen.

[Curlain]

I have always killed him simply because I don't believe that he would ever in reality join the Warden's party. Throughout the game his paranoia concerning an Orliasian invasion and the Warden's part in it runs so deeply and lasts right up to the duel itself, I just didn't find the idea of him suddenly doing a mental 180 and thinking 'I guess you aren't part of an Oriasian plot after all, so I'll join you,' believable. I just didn't find it believable personally for him to let go of the obsession that has been driving him just like that. If there had been an option to imprison him for the time being my Wardens would have taken that option some of the time.

Modifié par Curlain, 18 février 2011 - 07:54 .

[Addai]

Curlain wrote...

I have always killed him simply because I don't believe that he would ever in reality join the Warden's party. Throughout the game his paranoia concerning an Orliasian invasion and the Warden's part in it runs so deeply and lasts right up to the duel itself, I just didn't find the idea of him suddenly doing a mental 180 and thinking 'I guess you aren't part of an Oriasian plot after all, so I'll join you,' believable. I just didn't find it believable personally for him to let go of the obsession that has been driving him just like that. If there had been an option to imprison him for the time being my Wardens would have taken that option some of the time.

I used to think this and can still see the reasoning, but he also goes through the Joining.  The game makes that a brief cutscene, but think of how it could change a person to a) face the mortal danger and be hotwired into Blight TV- all Archie all the time.  As Alistair tells you, those who undergo the Joining during a Blight have an especially harrowing experience.  It's bound to change one's perspective on what it means to be a Grey Warden.

His dialogue is also done well.  Starting out, he is still cocky and challenging.  The problem is that the end game is all so rushed.  Would have been much better if we had been able to play it as originally intended, with the LM much earlier in the game.

Modifié par Addai67, 18 février 2011 - 08:00 .

[USArmyParatrooper]

Addai67 wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
On reputation I disagree. Loghain's actions as of late put a stain on his reputation. Some still follow him, but even before you out him for things like slavery in the Landsmeet many of the nobles had already turned against him. He is a divissive figure at best. I think a better rationale is the fact that the Wardens do accept criminals if their skills are useful.

Several of the rumor/ gossip discussions say that the people are generally positive if you spare Loghain.  Obviously some of those he fought in the Bannorn are not going to be happy, and few but Anora visit his statue if she is made sole ruler and puts one up.  But since he loses his title and regency no matter what, the nobles seem happy enough to let him serve in the Wardens, and he still has popularity with the common people for his hero status.

The problem is you say, "the people" as if they're one, homogenous entity. How about the Elves? How do they feel about a statue of a man who enslaved their people? No doubt if he becomes the Warden and he sacrifices himself to kill the archdemon he's going to win some people over. But then, whoever happens to do that his propped up as an epic hero.

Loghain's divissiveness is clearly written into the game. If the wardens were going for PR he's a bad choice in my opinion.

[Addai]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
The problem is you say, "the people" as if they're one, homogenous entity. How about the Elves? How do they feel about a statue of a man who enslaved their people? No doubt if he becomes the Warden and he sacrifices himself to kill the archdemon he's going to win some people over. But then, whoever happens to do that his propped up as an epic hero.

Loghain's divissiveness is clearly written into the game. If the wardens were going for PR he's a bad choice in my opinion.

Just curious, are you actually reading posts or are you just spouting bile about the character?  I said no one visits the statue except Anora.  Nonetheless there is general popular sentiment that it's a good thing if Loghain is spared.  That's part of the game writing, too.

[JFarr74]

I'm gonna let him live...

[Persephone]

JFarr74 wrote...

I'm gonna let him live...

Try both. Both outcomes lead to wonderfully written endings. I tend to let him live in most of my playthroughs.