764 réponses à ce sujet

[Wereparrot]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Wereparrot, Loghain was in a battle? Really? Because I seem to remember him literally turning his back on the true warriors who were actually in the battle.

I meant he was in the field. Regardless, his judgement would've been superior.

If it was planned (with) the king, you would have to subscribe to the notion that Loghain's public arguments with the Calain were all a ruse, as well as Calain's proclaimations of an easy, glorious victory. And IF the king thought it could go badly, why didn't he do as the Wardens suggested and wait for reinforcements?

I don't think you understand me. This would've been discussed AFTER the war meeting, and so Cailan's prior enthusiasm is irrelevant.

As I said, you can roll play by adding any backstory you wish. But there is zero evidence that even hints at your claim that Loghain ducking out of the fight was blessed off by the king.

I know it is speculation. But we already know from Gaider (I think it's him, and this has been discussed) that Loghain deserted as part of a tactical decision made in the heat of the moment, and not as a manouvre planned by Loghain prior to the battle. I am just developing this. 

[Wereparrot]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Dude, Loghain threatened the Bannorn and every other faction should they "shurk their duties to the throne." i.e. not follow him. He even told Anora he intended to put them in their place.

 
What are you saying? Ferelden needed unity, and his diplomatic skills were unlikely to achieve that in the time he had. If what I am saying is correct, then the Bannorn would'nt have known about the plan for Loghain to retreat, and Loghain should've clarified things.

Loghain didn't just run away from the key battle (and then covenienty put himself in charge). He used lies, murder and slavery to stay in power.

I did say that maybe Cailan's death unhinged him a bit, and that much of 'his' actions may actually be the brainchild of Howe if not executed by Howe and then attributed by Howe to Loghain (who's to say Howe didn't forge Loghain's name on the slaver documents), and I have also defended Loghain for not executing Howe by saying that such a move would be counter-productive, and defended his actions pertaining to Eamon as neccessary to prevent treason. And yet you continue to throw this at me?

[Addai]

Wereparrot wrote...

I don't think this has been mentioned before (I may be wrong) but lately I've wondered if Loghain deserted at Ostagar on Cailan's orders. Maybe Cailan told Loghain that, if the battle appear to him to be going ill, he was to flee so he could fight another day.

More like on Maric's orders.  After the battle of West Hill (where Rowan and Loghain left the main force to save Maric's life), Maric made him promise that he would never put one man above the interests of Ferelden again.  DG said that this was part of what was on Loghain's mind when he left the battle in Ostagar.

[Addai]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
Loghain didn't just run away from the key battle (and then covenienty put himself in charge). He used lies, murder and slavery to stay in power.

He had no personal interest in power.  When Maric wanted to help the Grey Wardens, Loghain argued against it because he said the country needed him (Maric).  Loghain made the same argument- strenuously- to Cailan.  If he had been interested in being top dog, he had plenty of opportunities before Ostagar.

Not saying all the things you list are good, but he did them for the same reason the Warden may do very questionable and murderous things- because of a greater existential threat to the country.

Re paranoia, certainly there is some.  But say a country like Poland wakes up and finds Russian tanks massed at its borders.  "We just want to help"- even if the threat on the other side of the country is dire- is not going to reassure some people.  Loghain's a hardliner, not a nutter.

Modifié par Addai67, 17 février 2011 - 04:00 .

[nos_astra]

I'm not fond of the theories that put Loghain on a pedestal, obviously with Gaider's approval.

To me it's painfully obvious that the game plot was written with Loghain having serious issues sorting out his priorities. Take his impaired judgement and paranoia away and you are left with a game plot that makes little sense, if I look closely.

I think his power grab can be considered treason. Especially if I'm assuming that Anora (formerly queen-consort) didn't automatically inherit Cailan's throne without an actual Landsmeet and Loghain grabbed power illegally during a period of interregnum.

Modifié par klarabella, 17 février 2011 - 04:22 .

[Addai]

Pedestal?   Who's doing that?

Loghain is always legally found guilty of treason, so there's no game inconsistency there. It's a matter of whether or not you think there are "extenuating circumstances" that make it warranted.  (edit:  or even if you don't but think there is a better way to use him than chop his head off)

Modifié par Addai67, 17 février 2011 - 04:32 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

Pedestal?   Who's doing that?

That was your main accusation towards me back in the days

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Pedestal?   Who's doing that?

That was your main accusation towards me back in the days

It still is at times. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Vis a vis Anora (which I incidentally don't do). I don't think I can be accused of that vis a vis Loghain after I criticized him so much a few days ago

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 février 2011 - 05:04 .

[Wereparrot]

klarabella wrote...

I think his power grab can be considered treason. Especially if I'm assuming that Anora (formerly queen-consort) didn't automatically inherit Cailan's throne without an actual Landsmeet and Loghain grabbed power illegally during a period of interregnum.

Loghain is potentially guilty of treason even if, as I believe, Anora does inherit the throne. 

[Face of Evil]

Addai67 wrote...

Not saying all the things you list are good, but he did them for the same reason the Warden may do very questionable and murderous things- because of a greater existential threat to the country.

THAT DIDN'T ACTUALLY EXIST. That's what it always comes down to for me: the Orlesian invasion Loghain was so worried about didn't exist. He did all these horrible things to battle an enemy that wasn't there. The Warden may do horrible things, but he/she does them in aid of battling an actual threat to Ferelden and the world.

I don't need him, and quite frankly, he rubs me the wrong way. So he gets the axe in my playthroughs.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 17 février 2011 - 05:40 .

[nos_astra]

Wereparrot wrote...
Loghain is potentially guilty of treason even if, as I believe, Anora does inherit the throne.

How so?

[Wereparrot]

klarabella wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...
Loghain is potentially guilty of treason even if, as I believe, Anora does inherit the throne.

How so?

If Anora is queen-regnant, then unless Anora approved of Loghain's 'regency', then Loghain is assuming royal power, which amounts to treason.

[nos_astra]

And what makes you think Anora did not approve, considering that she did nothing to remove him from power, despite her being the ruling monarch?

[KnightofPhoenix]

It's not really clear if Anora would automatically inherit the throne. I'd think a Landsmeet is still necessary to validate her, as it was necessary for Cailan.  Anora was popular amongst the nobles, so she had a chance of winning, but of course Loghain, possibly fearing that the Landsmeet would end up paralysing the whole system and war effort (and he has reasons to believe so, the Landsmeet was highly volatile under Maric), would have none of that.

[Wereparrot]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It's not really clear if Anora would automatically inherit the throne. I'd think a Landsmeet is still necessary to validate her, as it was necessary for Cailan.  Anora was popular amongst the nobles, so she had a chance of winning, but of course Loghain, possibly fearing that the Landsmeet would end up paralysing the whole system and war effort (and he has reasons to believe so, the Landsmeet was highly volatile under Maric), would have none of that.

It's Gaider's word that she is the queen, so I'd say that made it pretty clear, and that the phrase 'the king is dead, long live the king' is applicable in Ferelden.

[Wereparrot]

klarabella wrote...

And what makes you think Anora did not approve, considering that she did nothing to remove him from power, despite her being the ruling monarch?

I'm not saying she didn't approve, just what it would amount to if Anora was queen and she didn't approve of Loghain's actions. Not that she was in a position to remove him anyway.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wereparrot wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It's not really clear if Anora would automatically inherit the throne. I'd think a Landsmeet is still necessary to validate her, as it was necessary for Cailan.  Anora was popular amongst the nobles, so she had a chance of winning, but of course Loghain, possibly fearing that the Landsmeet would end up paralysing the whole system and war effort (and he has reasons to believe so, the Landsmeet was highly volatile under Maric), would have none of that.

It's Gaider's word that she is the queen, so I'd say that made it pretty clear, and that the phrase 'the king is dead, long live the king' is applicable in Ferelden.

Oh right, he did say that, I remember.

It should be noted that the Landsmeet's main purpose is to challenge Loghain's regency. Changing the monarch was only second in priority, except in Eamon's mind.

[Addai]

Face of Evil wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Not saying all the things you list are good, but he did them for the same reason the Warden may do very questionable and murderous things- because of a greater existential threat to the country.

THAT DIDN'T ACTUALLY EXIST. That's what it always comes down to for me: the Orlesian invasion Loghain was so worried about didn't exist. He did all these horrible things to battle an enemy that wasn't there. The Warden may do horrible things, but he/she does them in aid of battling an actual threat to Ferelden and the world.

Except that it did?  4 legions of chevaliers are at the border, that's a game fact.  That is a huge army, and the chevaliers are the prime offenders in carrying out the worst atrocities in the Orlesian occupation of Ferelden.  Already once in history Orlais has used the aftermath of a Blight to occupy foreign territory, just as (to use my example again) the Red Army did not pull out after "liberating" Eastern Europe.  It's easy for you or me to say that Loghain should not have seen the chevaliers as a threat.  He actually lived through the occupation, however, and saw what it cost to end it.  Cailan didn't, Anora didn't.

Modifié par Addai67, 17 février 2011 - 06:28 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
It should be noted that the Landsmeet's main purpose is to challenge Loghain's regency. Changing the monarch was only second in priority, except in Eamon's mind.

That's the main purpose, but without a competing claim for the throne, you can't challenge Loghain's regency since Anora has been supporting it all along.  As Eamon says, "we need a challenge that Loghain can't ignore."  That's bascially what the duel is about.  Even if you win the vote, the Grand Cleric introduces the duel by saying that the two competing claims for the throne haven't been established so a cage match is needed to settle it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
It should be noted that the Landsmeet's main purpose is to challenge Loghain's regency. Changing the monarch was only second in priority, except in Eamon's mind.

That's the main purpose, but without a competing claim for the throne, you can't challenge Loghain's regency since Anora has been supporting it all along.  As Eamon says, "we need a challenge that Loghain can't ignore."  That's bascially what the duel is about.  Even if you win the vote, the Grand Cleric introduces the duel by saying that the two competing claims for the throne haven't been established so a cage match is needed to settle it.

When Anora is shown willing to change sides, there is no need to bring a challenge any longer.

The duel was precisely what Loghain said it was. It was either you or him the men will follow and you were going to fight for it. It was not about the monarch, but who gets to decide who the monarch is.

[CalJones]

Until we see what DAII (and further sequels) bring, we won't know whether Orlais is intent on retaking Fereldan or not. Obviously the Darkspawn are the immediate threat, but the Orlesians can't be discounted due to their historical record.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The duel was precisely what Loghain said it was. It was either you or him the men will follow and you were going to fight for it. It was not about the monarch, but who gets to decide who the monarch is.

That's how he sees it, not necessarily the assembly chamber.  Otherwise there is no reason for the duel at all if the Warden wins the vote.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The duel was precisely what Loghain said it was. It was either you or him the men will follow and you were going to fight for it. It was not about the monarch, but who gets to decide who the monarch is.

That's how he sees it, not necessarily the assembly chamber.  Otherwise there is no reason for the duel at all if the Warden wins the vote.

Apparently it's Loghain's right to challenge you to a duel. Or he was preparing to fight you anyways, so in order to save time and lives, you'll settle it with a duel. The way the game is, the Warden has only the choice of starting a general spree or call for a duel.  

In either case, the Landsmeet was going to abide by anything you say, even if you happen to lose the vote. Legality no longer mattered, what mattered was brute force, put bluntly.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Apparently it's Loghain's right to challenge you to a duel. Or he was preparing to fight you anyways, so in order to save time and lives, you'll settle it with a duel. The way the game is, the Warden has only the choice of starting a general spree or call for a duel.  

At least in some cases, it is neither party who calls for a duel but the Grand Cleric, and her stated reason is that neither of the claimants to the throne can prove their bid otherwise.