764 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

TJPags wrote...

Persephone wrote...

TJPags wrote...

ZeBlob987 wrote...

everittdaniel wrote...

Semi-related - having a hard time trying to figure out what actions to do to get the following at the epilogue, if possible

Male human noble and anora rule together. MHN has performed dark ritual with morrigan.
Alistair alive but not a drunk


Is this possible, and what actions do I need to do to get it? Am I going to have to kill Loghain (or have him killed / ultimate sacrifice?)

iirc, just have him kill Loghain so Anora will marry you
I believe Alistair remains a Warden in that case

Yup - this is correct.  Have Alistair kill Loghain.

Really, the only reason to let Loghain live is to make Alistair run off as a drunk. 
.

No.

Now now - the first part of what I said is completely correct.  To get the HNM and Anora married, with Alistair alive and not a drunk, one must have Alistair kill Loghain.

The second part I am well aware that you diagree with. 

I was kidding, hence the :happy:

Good to see ya back in this forum.

[TJPags]

Persephone wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Persephone wrote...

TJPags wrote...

ZeBlob987 wrote...

everittdaniel wrote...

Semi-related - having a hard time trying to figure out what actions to do to get the following at the epilogue, if possible

Male human noble and anora rule together. MHN has performed dark ritual with morrigan.
Alistair alive but not a drunk


Is this possible, and what actions do I need to do to get it? Am I going to have to kill Loghain (or have him killed / ultimate sacrifice?)

iirc, just have him kill Loghain so Anora will marry you
I believe Alistair remains a Warden in that case

Yup - this is correct.  Have Alistair kill Loghain.

Really, the only reason to let Loghain live is to make Alistair run off as a drunk. 
.

No.

Now now - the first part of what I said is completely correct.  To get the HNM and Anora married, with Alistair alive and not a drunk, one must have Alistair kill Loghain.

The second part I am well aware that you diagree with. 

I was kidding, hence the :happy:

Good to see ya back in this forum.

I assumed, which is why I started with "now now". 

And thank you.  I've decided I'm not very high on DA2 at the moment, and decided to avoid those forums until I've played it and decide for sure. 

[testing123]

Persephone wrote...
KOP has put it very nicely once: There are as many good reasons to kill him as there are not to kill him.

If this is something we all buy into it's amazing we still manage to argue about it.

[Face of Evil]

jvee wrote...

If this is something we all buy into it's amazing we still manage to argue about it.

I don't buy into it. But then, I got problems with seeing in black and white, ie. wrongs should be righted, evil should be fought, violence is awesome, coleslaw goes well with chicken, etc.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 01 mars 2011 - 05:03 .

[Joy Divison]

KOP has put it very nicely once: There are as many good reasons to kill him as there are not to kill him.

Nice, but too ambivalent.  Surely we also see the balance tips one way of the other:devil:

[KnightofPhoenix]

Joy Divison wrote...

KOP has put it very nicely once: There are as many good reasons to kill him as there are not to kill him.

Nice, but too ambivalent.  Surely we also see the balance tips one way of the other:devil:

I think the word I used was "valid" and not "good".

There are a variety of valid (or reasonable) reasons to either kill or spare. It's up the player to weight them accordingly.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 mars 2011 - 04:25 .

[Mustang678]

Can't handle someone who directly betrayed his king, especially as a human noble. Had the circumstances been different or myself not a roleplayer I may've been able to spare him

[JFarr74]

IT'S JUST A GAME PEOPLE. SETTLE DOWN!

[Wereparrot]

Mustang678 wrote...

Can't handle someone who directly betrayed his king, especially as a human noble. Had the circumstances been different or myself not a roleplayer I may've been able to spare him

If it was a simple matter of brazen, pre-meditated treason I would agree, but it's not. Sometimes I execute him, sometimes I spare him; still sometimes I feed him to the Archdemon (or at least when I am forced to do so by a certain infamous bug), which for me is still the death penalty (in perfect hindsight of course). 

[JFarr74]

Stay on Topic...

[TJPags]

What's off topic?

[JFarr74]

I didn't want people to start a big debate, I just wanted their opinions...

[Wereparrot]

JFarr74 wrote...

I didn't want people to start a big debate, I just wanted their opinions...

And you have them. The debate is an extra £10. For everyone who has participated in this thread.

[JFarr74]

Wereparrot wrote...

JFarr74 wrote...

I didn't want people to start a big debate, I just wanted their opinions...

And you have them. The debate is an extra £10. For everyone who has participated in this thread.

Awesome

[Amazon Queen]

Mustang678 wrote...

Can't handle someone who directly betrayed his king, especially as a human noble. Had the circumstances been different or myself not a roleplayer I may've been able to spare him

He saw duty to his country as higher than that to his king, and Cailan was working for an alliance possibly involving union of the two crowns without consulting the Landsmeet or anyone else. Cailan's actions - an alliance with Feralden's old enemies and fighting a battle without waiting for his new allies or even all of Feraldens own troops to arrive were foolish in the extreme. I suspect they were a petulant attempt to break free of the domination of his wife and father-in-law. I don't blame Loghain for deserting Cailan (well not much anyway). His other actions like attacking the Grey Wardens, poisoning Arl Eamon and possible complicity in Arl Howes attack on Highever greatly weakened Feralden to the point that if Orlais invaded after the Blight was defeated it would've been a walkover. That was unforgivable.

[Addai]

JFarr74 wrote...

I didn't want people to start a big debate, I just wanted their opinions...

That's like throwing a match on kindling and asking it not to burn.    Loghain provokes fiery debates, it's what he does.

[Wereparrot]

Amazon Queen wrote...

Mustang678 wrote...

Can't handle someone who directly betrayed his king, especially as a human noble. Had the circumstances been different or myself not a roleplayer I may've been able to spare him

His other actions like attacking the Grey Wardens,

All two of them? Killing two Wardens would not weaken Ferelden by anything like a significant amount if we are referring to Orlais. Anyway, I think I share Loghain's atitude to the Wardens, or at least some of it. Giving safe harbour to an organisation that owes you no fealty is a possible prelude to disaster. I find the idea that the Wardens answer to Weissaupt and not Ferelden to be very disturbing. 

poisoning Arl Eamon.

I really find it hard to sympathize with this, because to my mind Eamon proves himself to be a traitor by rebelling against Anora.

[Amazon Queen]

Wereparrot wrote...

Amazon Queen wrote...

Mustang678 wrote...

Can't handle someone who directly betrayed his king, especially as a human noble. Had the circumstances been different or myself not a roleplayer I may've been able to spare him

His other actions like attacking the Grey Wardens,

All two of them? Killing two Wardens would not weaken Ferelden by anything like a significant amount if we are referring to Orlais. Anyway, I think I share Loghain's atitude to the Wardens, or at least some of it. Giving safe harbour to an organisation that owes you no fealty is a possible prelude to disaster. I find the idea that the Wardens answer to Weissaupt and not Ferelden to be very disturbing. 

poisoning Arl Eamon.

I really find it hard to sympathize with this, because to my mind Eamon proves himself to be a traitor by rebelling against Anora.

There were other wardens at Ostagar and the bounty was on wardens in general, not just the PC and Alistair. He also imprisoned Riordan. I can understand his suspicion of them. The Templars evoked a similar reaction but like them or not they're needed to defeat Blights.

Eamon didn't rebel before he was poisoned. Also Anora wasn't confirmed Queen by the Landsmeet then. Eamon never rebelled since Anora was never the rightful ruler. He just challanged Loghains choosing who ruled after Cailan. Thats my problem with Loghain, his conviction that only he can make the right decisions for Feralden when his decisions were almost as bad as Cailans.

[TEWR]

If you look at the background, you can see he had more soldiers then just what was seen when Cauthrien sounded the retreat, as many figures are seen moving to the right. He could've definitely won, as it seemed like there were more soldiers than Darkspawn.

Plus he found out Cailan was planning to leave Anora for Empress Celene of Orlais. So he let him die. Such a good father-in-law he is.

[TJPags]

Wereparrot wrote...

[All two of them? Killing two Wardens would not weaken Ferelden by anything like a significant amount if we are referring to Orlais. Anyway, I think I share Loghain's atitude to the Wardens, or at least some of it. Giving safe harbour to an organisation that owes you no fealty is a possible prelude to disaster. I find the idea that the Wardens answer to Weissaupt and not Ferelden to be very disturbing. 

So - going to be putting bounties on the heads of Templars soon, too? 

[TEWR]

Wereparrot wrote...


All two of them? Killing two Wardens would not weaken Ferelden by anything like a significant amount if we are referring to Orlais. Anyway, I think I share Loghain's atitude to the Wardens, or at least some of it. Giving safe harbour to an organisation that owes you no fealty is a possible prelude to disaster. I find the idea that the Wardens answer to Weissaupt and not Ferelden to be very disturbing. 

poisoning Arl Eamon.

I really find it hard to sympathize with this, because to my mind Eamon proves himself to be a traitor by rebelling against Anora.

ok one: Grey Wardens show no fealty to any country so as to maintain a state of neutrality. Their primary concern, as well as their only concern, is to combat the Darkspawn. To that end, getting involved in political affairs would jeopardize their status in other countries. If they took up arms in support of one country in a war, the other country might not want the Grey Wardens in their land anymore.

Secondly, Eamon never rebelled against Anora. Eamon rebelled against Loghain, and Anora rebelled against Loghain as her doubts about him grew stronger and stronger.


EDIT: Sophia Dryden however, is a whole different matter as she did jeopardize the Wardens neutrality, but only after being unjustly exiled from Ferelden by an incompetent, tyrannical monarch who only cared for himself. Thus, while still breaking the Warden Political Code, it was an exception, as is the Warden and Alistair rebelling against Loghain to unite Ferelden against the Blight.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 03 mars 2011 - 01:18 .

[Addai]

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

I’d like to discuss one more thing.

Retreating at Ostagar is one of the things I don't like about Loghain. I understand why he retreated and I also think that the battle was unwinnable. But deserting like that was one of the things that sparked the civil war.

Why couldn’t he attack the darkspawn, quickly get to Cailan and then retreat?

It probably would not have worked.  The front line was deep in the valley at the fortress because they were trying to draw the horde in so that Loghain could swing around and catch them in the flank.  But the horde was much larger than anticipated.  You can see them streaming off a hilliside with seemingly no end to their line. If he had flanked, he might have just ended up swallowed by the horde and trapped in the valley, too.  Maybe he'd have broken out, but at a great loss of life, and in his mind Ferelden was about to fight a two-front war against darkspawn and Orlesians.  So he decided to cut the losses and fight another day.

[JFarr74]

I felt bad about killing him, so I let him live...