374 réponses à ce sujet

[Joy Divison]

Sarah1281 wrote...

2) Yes, I know the Wardens have committed treachery in the past. What I have issue with is that they did not commit treachery and Loghain damn well knows this. It was Cailan who dragged Loghain to Ostagar, not the Wardens. It was Loghain's plan that failed spectacularly, not the Wardens. As a historian, I can appreciate Loghain's distrust of centuries old tales. What I can not accept is his using them as scapegoats and branding them as traitors to consolidate his hold on power.

Do we know that he's lying? He knows that the Beacon was lit late but not necessarily that it took you forever to clear the tower of darkspawn that were never supposed to be there. Given his paranoia about Orlais and Grey Wardens, he probably saw the delay as deliberate in order to sabotage the battle.

He's not paranoid about the Grey Wardens.  He just doesn't believe their legend in necessary to defeat the Blight.  Loghain knows as a general that no plan survives contact w/ the enemy; if he actually believes it was a warden conspiracy, then he is a fool as the Wardens had nothing to gain by killing their own and a King who values them in a land they were banished for over a century.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 04 février 2011 - 02:05 .

[Sarah1281]

Are you at all familiar with The Calling? The Orlesians and the Grey Wardens were in a plot to kill the king and Loghain doesn't really have all the details from that. If the Grey Wardens have already proven willing to put Orlesian interests first, it's not stupid to suspect it again and if he doesn't think they are necessary to not risk trusting them (especially as he probably did view Cailan's obsession with the Wardens as the Wardens trying to influence him).

[Joy Divison]

No, I did not read The Calling. I suspect much of the pro-Loghain opinion stems from content that the game and thus, the GW, do not possess.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Joy Divison wrote...

No, I did not read The Calling. I suspect much of the pro-Loghain opinion stems from content that the game and thus, the GW, do not possess.

One can still suspect the loyalty of the Wardens in the game because:

1) they've been historically associated with the Orlais and helped it spread its imperial influence via the Chantry

2) the Wardens were kicked out of Ferelden, for a reason. While the Warden could not have known why precisely, it's probably for a political reason. Until they go to Soldier's keep and realize what happened and can become more suspicious. The idea that the Wardens are always neutral is just false.

3) The vast vast majority of Wardens are foreigners, accompanied by four legions of chevaliers. The Wardens proved to be diplomatically incompetent when they didn't even try to tell Ferelden that they would accept to come in without the Orlesians (and we know from Riordan that they made no such attempt, but decided to camp at the borders).

4) Wardens are active in the Imperial court.

Not all this info is in the game perse, but it's part of the history of the continent that a well educated Ferelden (admitedly a noble is more likely to be that) could know.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 04 février 2011 - 02:14 .

[Addai]

Joy Divison wrote...

No, I did not read The Calling. I suspect much of the pro-Loghain opinion stems from content that the game and thus, the GW, do not possess.

It depends on the Warden.  A Cousland would know the story of the rebellion very well.  Papa and Mama fought in it, after all.

[Persephone]

Joy Divison wrote...

No, I did not read The Calling. I suspect much of the pro-Loghain opinion stems from content that the game and thus, the GW, do not possess.

No. Reading the books merely ties up loose strands that otherwise leave you puzzled. Loghain doesn't exactly get much "screen time" before the LM and you never get to speak to him alone unless you recruit him. If one seeks to comprehend this multi-faceted character, I suggest to recruit him at least once. Of course playing the game after reading the books is a different experience, especially concerning his character. It's not that the books put things in the game that aren't there to begin with. It merely enriches the experience, connects dots and shows the man's humanity.

[Zjarcal]

Joy Divison wrote...

No, I did not read The Calling. I suspect much of the pro-Loghain opinion stems from content that the game and thus, the GW, do not possess.

Eh, I haven't read the books and I'm very pro-Loghain.

EDIT: Although it does depend on the character of course. As Addai pointed out, a Cousland would definitely know about Loghain and his involvement in the rebellion.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 04 février 2011 - 02:34 .

[Joy Divison]

One can still suspect the loyalty of the Wardens in the game because:

1) they've been historically associated with the Orlais and helped it spread its imperial influence via the Chantry

2)
the Wardens were kicked out of Ferelden, for a reason. While the Warden
could not have known why precisely, it's probably for a political
reason. Until they go to Soldier's keep and realize what happened and
can become more suspicious. The idea that the Wardens are always neutral
is just false.

3) The vast vast majority of Wardens are
foreigners, accompanied by four legions of chevaliers. The Wardens
proved to be diplomatically incompetent when they didn't even try to
tell Ferelden that they would accept to come in without the Orlesians
(and we know from Riordan that they made no such attempt, but decided to
camp at the borders).

4) Wardens are active in the Imperial court.

Not
all this info is in the game perse, but it's part of the history of the
continent that a well educated Ferelden (admitedly a noble is more
likely to be that) could know.

I did not know 1.  I thought they were created before Orlais even existed and their HQ was in Anderfells.

For 2, it's an ideal, true, but during a Blight, assuming Orleasian intrigue over duty is potentially suicidal.  Paranoic stupidity abounds in history; the obvious example is fear of Communism in 1938.

3.  That I knew.  It's hard for me to be sympathetic to xenophobia.

4. I did not know that.

A very well educated warden might know this.  At least 4 of the GW origins would know nothing of this and only a Mage interested in history might know of it.  Even if a GW knows this stuff, they do not have to put much faith in it (For ex., I read and was told that Communism was an international movement centered in Moscow dedicated to the destruction of the free market world order or something like that, I was always suspicious of it and now understand that view was/is nonsensical).  Even if  GW was inclined to believe it, the GW might see that war makes for uncomfortable bedfellows and accept Orlesian assistance because it is preferable to potential extinction.

I still say it requires a very large leap of faith with the knowledge given to a player in the game to come to empathize, let alone, forgive, Loghain's scapegoating of the Wardens at Ostagar.  In fact, when I first met Loghain, I get the impression he respected them because Marric did and spoke highly of one of them.  I understand he dismisses the mythology around them, and that's fine.  Cailan insisted on engaging the darkspawn at Ostagar and it was Loghain was dismissed the help of the Orleasians and drew up the failed battle plan.  I have a difficult time seeing the Wardens are culprits or even complicit when Cailan and Loghain seem to be the architects of the disaster.

No. Reading the books merely ties up loose strands that otherwise
leave you puzzled. Loghain doesn't exactly get much "screen time" before
the LM and you never get to speak to him alone unless you recruit him.
If one seeks to comprehend this multi-faceted character, I suggest to
recruit him at least once. Of course playing the game after reading the
books is a different experience, especially concerning his character.
It's not that the books put things in the game that aren't there to
begin with. It merely enriches the experience, connects dots and shows
the man's humanity.

I did recuit him.  I agree he is a multi-faceted character.  I heard his side and while I understand much of what he did, it does not mean I can not hold him responsible for allowing his personal demons and biases to bring about one folly after another.  He decision to withdraw from Ostagar may have been for the best and I think Alistair's motive for wanting to kill him is wrongheaded, I do fault him for underestimating the enemy and a seriously problematic plan from someone who is ostensibly a military genius.  I think Eamon is a putz, but he does demonstrate tremendous statesmanship by admitting if no politcal means can be find to end loghain's rule peacefully, he would have to support Loghain (a man who tried to murder him).  Meanwhile, Loghain is busy "bringing the nobility in line," and can't recognize Ferelden does not have the manpower to fight a civil war even when Howe admits it to him.  The Warden only hears of how Loghain was thirty years ago from Eamon, Anora, and a Codex entry about his part in the war.  None of these qualities are on display in the present; they are revealed only *after* his defiance of his crimes and he is defeated in a duel.  As I said after recruiting Loghain, I was able to appreciate why he did what he did but I still think his actions are heinous and merit the punishment my GWs usually dole out.

Eh, I haven't read the books and I'm very pro-Loghain.

I did say "I suspect much..." not that you had to have read the books.  Actually often I like characters who are supposed to be the villians.  They are typically much more interesting and multi-dimensional than the trite heroes I see so often.  There is just a lot of gameplay in Dragon Age that makes it difficult to forgive Loghain, at least for me.  But then again I have a bias against incompetent and blind leaders during times of crisis.  He should have let Anora rule and led Ferelden's armies, even if her speeches are cacophonous.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Joy Divison wrote...
I did not know 1.  I thought they were created before Orlais even existed and their HQ was in Anderfells.

Yes they were created before, but they assisted Orlais in spreading Chantry influence (an institution created by the emperor of Orlais, there is definitely a political interest involved).

From the DA2 timeline:
"1:01 Divine Age: The Chantry named its first Divine, Justinia I,
giving the first age of the new calendar its name. This age saw the
expansion of the Chantry’s influence throughout Thedas, aided by the
eager conversion of the Grey Wardens. The order championed the Chantry’s
growth, spreading Andraste’s teachings across Thedas."

Furthermore, the Wardens are sustained by stipends from individual countries. Orlais is the most powerful one, so I think it's logical to assume that they provide the most stipends. I'd find it hard to believe that this does not translate into some kind of influence.

Joy Divison wrote...
For 2, it's an ideal, true, but during a Blight, assuming Orleasian intrigue over duty is potentially suicidal.  Paranoic stupidity abounds in history; the obvious example is fear of Communism in 1938.

There was little to no evidence that this was a blight, until the very end. If you notice the loading map, the darkspawn threat was largely confined to the south until when you finish the last treaty quest. Furthermore, we know from our travels that the bulk of the horde was still underground with the Archdemon.

For someone who rejects what he sees as Warden myths, Loghain had no reason to believe Duncan's claims that this is a blight. While I agree that Loghain was too quick to dismiss the Wardens, I do not blame him for not realizing that this is a blight until later.

Now do I believe that his sense of priority was very flawed at the very end? Yes absolutely.
But by that time, I think he was committed way too much to a course of action (due to stubborness, or pride or whatever) that, while it may have made some sense before, became unfeasible.

Joy Divison wrote...
3.  That I knew.  It's hard for me to be sympathetic to xenophobia.

This is not simple xenophobia. No country willingly allows a foreign army, that of a much powerful neighbour to boot, to go in its territory without thinking twice about it, for a whole mess of reasons.

Heck even Charles De Gaulle was nervous at the idea of American and British armies on French soil and he had no other choice. That's why he somewhat recklessly charged at Paris and made sure it was a French army that liberated it.

Point is, I do not think Loghain was having a simple xenophobia here. This is a genuine political / military matter. Many soldiers in Ostagar express their disgust at the idea of Orlesian reinforcements too.  Nor do I think that this attitude is irrational or at least completely so. It has grounding in both history and just basic political common sense. 

Joy Divison wrote...
4. I did not know that.

It's in Awakening. The Orlesian Warden commander comes from the Imperial court.

Joy Divison wrote...
  Even if  GW was inclined to believe it, the GW might see that war makes for uncomfortable bedfellows and accept Orlesian assistance because it is preferable to potential extinction.

Not dismissing the possibility. Merely expressing the other possibility and why a Warden might in fact sympathize and forgive Loghain who in large part was led astray by an ignorance he could not have avoided. doesn't mean that Warden has to completely agree with him either, I don't.

As for the subjectivity of history. I do not really believe that historical records are going to be critical of the Wardens, if anything they are going to embellish the stories. 
But I was more talking about factual reports, like Wardens being involved in Orlesian politics, they assisting Orlais in the past...etc. I do think that a Warden of specific origins can find out about stuff like this, while ignore whatever narative the source is telling.

Joy Divison wrote...
I still say it requires a very large leap of faith with the knowledge given to a player in the game to come to empathize, let alone, forgive, Loghain's scapegoating of the Wardens at Ostagar.

Eh, I just saw it as a politically useful instrument. Of course he was going to scapegoat someone else. I am sure he did believe that the Wardens were partially responsible and that I agree with. Duncan made absolutely no effort to slap some sense into Cailan and was apparently merely content to take advantage of his idiocy. Not to mention what Loghain himself experienced with the Wardens. But for the most part, I think he didn't trust them, more than he blamed them for Ostagar (I think he blames Cailan the most, an assement I agree with).

I didn't take it personally, so there is nothing for me to forgive in that regard.   

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 février 2011 - 12:20 .

[sylvanaerie]

(I didn't want to wade through 10 pages of what it seems has degenerated into yet another merits of Loghain vs his flaws debate)

To respond to the original poster: I put Anora on the throne about half my playthroughs now. Despite all that has happened up to that point, once you remove Loghain from the equation (either by killing him or conscripting him) she makes an excellent ruler.

Aside from the whole elves in the Alienage situation, her Ferelden afterward prospers and recovers from the Blight quite nicely.

From birth she was told she would be queen. She has trained and prepared for this her entire life, learning how to rule a country and deal with the nobility on a day to day basis. Alistair was told he would never be king, was a danger to Cailan if anyone learned of his parentage and then shunted away to a chantry. Until the events of the game he never even expected it.

Does he do a creditable job himself after the Blight? Yes, but I still think Anora edges him out just a wee bit because she is better prepared and she is more 'progressive' than he is. Alistair will take months (perhaps years he really doesn't have) to be on a par with her. And thats if he is hardened. Unhardened I NEVER put him on the throne. He doesn't want it and ends up leaving it to Eamon to run things (or the PC if you are chancellor). While that is great if you are a power mongering asswipe, I don't play those kinds of characters. And while yes, he is better at dealing with people (and speech giving OMG I HATE Anora's screechy voice) speeches do not a great king make. Though they certainly can help.

I'm willing to cut Anora some slack in that department, though personally I wish that they had never fixed that bug that had Alistair giving the speech if he wasn't king. He WAS a Grey Warden and had a personal interest in ending the Blight that went beyond just ending the Blight. I'd have accepted that reasoning before having to subject myself to Anora's screechy harpy voice.

But that's what mute buttons are made for!

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
There was little to no evidence that this was a blight, until the very end. If you notice the loading map, the darkspawn threat was largely confined to the south until when you finish the last treaty quest. Furthermore, we know from our travels that the bulk of the horde was still underground with the Archdemon.

There was more than enough evidence that this was a Blight.

Darkspawn haven't been seen in Ferelden in decades, they were believed extinct. And suddenly there is this huge, organized, unbeatable horde at Ostagar that comes to the surface  for no apparent reasons and disappears (or has fun in the south for a year) after the enemy cleverly retreats.

Arl Wulff will tell you that the south has fallen and so have the Western Hills. The Western Hills are north of Lake Calenhad, between Waking Sea and Highever.

I really don't think the map or the lack of darkspawn you encounter in the game are supposed to bear meaning, especially since you are told you don't have much time. It's likely they didn't implement a more dynamic environment due to time and money constraints, not to demonstrate that the Blight is a non-issue.

Modifié par klarabella, 06 février 2011 - 11:26 .

[ddv.rsa]

I think keeping Anora on the throne, with or without Alistair, adds legitimacy to the post-Landsmeet government. Deposing the sitting queen and installing a warden as king makes me feel like I'm pulling a coup.

[Eshaye]

Anora is a different person depending on whether you openly support her or not. My elven mage supported her and she therefore never gave any indication that she was conniving. The mage didn't mention she was present when we went to 'save' her either. But on my Cousland playthrough, she was a real shrew. Lady Cousland woudn't trust her as far as she could throw her.



If I remember correctly Alistair is more fair with everyone in the kingdom due to his experiences while Anora is a typical human non-mage ruler.

[Aran Linvail]

I just wish we have a choice to execute her , a Cutscene of Anora being Decapitaded is something i love to see ... I hate that woman ...

The only person i hate more is Isolde ...

Long Live King Alistair !!!

Modifié par Baldurs Gate Fanboy, 06 février 2011 - 04:06 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...
There was more than enough evidence that this was a Blight.

Darkspawn haven't been seen in Ferelden in decades, they were believed extinct. And suddenly there is this huge, organized, unbeatable horde at Ostagar that comes to the surface  for no apparent reasons and disappears (or has fun in the south for a year) after the enemy cleverly retreats.

Arl Wulff will tell you that the south has fallen and so have the Western Hills. The Western Hills are north of Lake Calenhad, between Waking Sea and Highever.

I really don't think the map or the lack of darkspawn you encounter in the game are supposed to bear meaning, especially since you are told you don't have much time. It's likely they didn't implement a more dynamic environment due to time and money constraints, not to demonstrate that the Blight is a non-issue.

That is not evidence. If anything, the darkspawn just raiding and not doing much else after Ostagar is in fact a strong reason to believe that this was unusually large darkspawn raid. It is likely that the Archdemon found out about the civil war and decided not to comit until they tire each other out.  But there is no way for Loghain to know that this was a clever retreat.
And it was unbeatable at Ostagar because Loghain did not have the numbers he needed, hence Uldred and the messenger to Orzammar. Like I said, the bulk of the horde was still underground.

As for what Arl Wulf says, that's after the last treaty quest when we see on the map that the "black cloud" explodes from the South. I think the map is indicative, unless you want to convince me that the Bannorn were still trying to fight Loghain, despite the darkspawn slaughtering them. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 février 2011 - 04:46 .

[Sarah1281]

While that is great if you are a power mongering asswipe, I don't play those kinds of characters.

Or if you happen to be playing a character that wants power but is NOT an asswipe...which is entirely possible.

[USArmyParatrooper]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

klarabella wrote...
There was more than enough evidence that this was a Blight.

Darkspawn haven't been seen in Ferelden in decades, they were believed extinct. And suddenly there is this huge, organized, unbeatable horde at Ostagar that comes to the surface  for no apparent reasons and disappears (or has fun in the south for a year) after the enemy cleverly retreats.

Arl Wulff will tell you that the south has fallen and so have the Western Hills. The Western Hills are north of Lake Calenhad, between Waking Sea and Highever.

I really don't think the map or the lack of darkspawn you encounter in the game are supposed to bear meaning, especially since you are told you don't have much time. It's likely they didn't implement a more dynamic environment due to time and money constraints, not to demonstrate that the Blight is a non-issue.

That is not evidence. If anything, the darkspawn just raiding and not doing much else after Ostagar is in fact a strong reason to believe that this was unusually large darkspawn raid. It is likely that the Archdemon found out about the civil war and decided not to comit until they tire each other out.  But there is no way for Loghain to know that this was a clever retreat.
And it was unbeatable at Ostagar because Loghain did not have the numbers he needed, hence Uldred and the messenger to Orzammar. Like I said, the bulk of the horde was still underground.

As for what Arl Wulf says, that's after the last treaty quest when we see on the map that the "black cloud" explodes from the South. I think the map is indicative, unless you want to convince me that the Bannorn were still trying to fight Loghain, despite the darkspawn slaughtering them. 

The sudden reappearance of the darkspawn after decades IS evidence of a blight. The fact that they were able to deploy such massive numbers to overwhelm Ostagar IS also evidence. The Grey Wardens, who everybody knows are subject matter experts and can sense the darkspawn declared it to be a blight.

You can make reasonable arguments that there was no proof that it was a true blight, but you can't with a straight face say there was no evidence of such. And that's why good Generals are so important. Because good Generals are able to make accurate assessments of threats and of the battlefield.

Logain is unquestionably a tyrant and untrustworthy. But I even think you can, in fairness, question prowess as a General.

[Giggles_Manically]

Sarah1281 wrote...

While that is great if you are a power mongering asswipe, I don't play those kinds of characters.

Or if you happen to be playing a character that wants power but is NOT an asswipe...which is entirely possible.

LIES!

Only people who dont want to be a leader and with the most pure hearts can EVER lead! 

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
The sudden reappearance of the darkspawn after decades IS evidence of a blight. The fact that they were able to deploy such massive numbers to overwhelm Ostagar IS also evidence. The Grey Wardens, who everybody knows are subject matter experts and can sense the darkspawn declared it to be a blight.

You can make reasonable arguments that there was no proof that it was a true blight, but you can't with a straight face say there was no evidence of such. And that's why good Generals are so important. Because good Generals are able to make accurate assessments of threats and of the battlefield.

No one knows how the Wardens know, except unexplained feelings. For someone who doesn't trust them and for good reason, what they say is no evidence.

Why the sudden reapearance of the darkspawn cannot be a raid that can and do happen? Why can't it be a unusually large raid? If they had such overwhlming numbers, why didn't the darkspawn do anything for a year?
If you want to consider that evidence, then sure, but it's weak evidence that is far from being decisive.  

And you speak as if Loghain dismissed the threat. In the Denerim cutscene, he tells the nobles to give him troops, rather clumsily, to fight the darkspawn. He may not have believed that this was a blight, but he did not compeltely dismiss them either. The Bannorn were more quick to dismiss them, despite the fact that the darkspawn are right south of them. Loghain did not realize the full extent of the threat, but he did not dismiss it either. He was preparing, hence his alliance with Uldred and his messenger to Orzammar (something Cailan had failed to do).

Loghain's assessement was correct at Ostagar, his retreat was the wise course of aciton. His assessement was also correct when he realized that he needed the Circle of Magi and Orzammar as allies. His assessement of Orlesian threat, while not compeltely accurate and certainly exagerrated, has a sound basis and grounding in history and common sense. His assessement that the idiotic bannorn would submit to him on the otherhand was false, that I agree. 

And I find him trustworthy, as do many others. So maybe you should specify that he is "unquestionably untrustworthy" to you.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 février 2011 - 06:40 .

[USArmyParatrooper]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
The sudden reappearance of the darkspawn after decades IS evidence of a blight. The fact that they were able to deploy such massive numbers to overwhelm Ostagar IS also evidence. The Grey Wardens, who everybody knows are subject matter experts and can sense the darkspawn declared it to be a blight.

You can make reasonable arguments that there was no proof that it was a true blight, but you can't with a straight face say there was no evidence of such. And that's why good Generals are so important. Because good Generals are able to make accurate assessments of threats and of the battlefield.

No one knows how the Wardens know, except unexplained feelings. For someone who doesn't trust them and for good reason, what they say is no evidence.

Why the sudden reapearance of the darkspawn cannot be a raid that can and do happen? Why can't it be a unusually large raid? If they had such overwhlming numbers, why didn't the darkspawn do anything for a year?
If you want to consider that evidence, then sure, but it's weak evidence that is far from being decisive.  

And you speak as if Loghain dismissed the threat. In the Denerim cutscene, he tells the nobles to give him troops, rather clumsily, to fight the darkspawn. He may not have believed that this was a blight, but he did not compeltely dismiss them either. The Bannorn were more quick to dismiss them, despite the fact that the darkspawn are right south of them. Loghain did not realize the full extent of the threat, but he did not dismiss it either. He was preparing, hence his alliance with Uldred and his messenger to Orzammar (something Cailan had failed to do).

Loghain's assessement was correct at Ostagar, his retreat was the wise course of aciton. His assessement was also correct when he realized that he needed the Circle of Magi and Orzammar as allies. His assessement of Orlesian threat, while not compeltely accurate and certainly exagerrated, has a sound basis and grounding in history and common sense. His assessement that the idiotic bannorn would submit to him on the otherhand was false, that I agree. 

And I find him trustworthy, as do many others. So maybe you should specify that he is "unquestionably untrustworthy" to you.

They know Grey Wardens are subject matter experts on the darskpawn. They know they can even sense the darkspawn. And what is this "good reason" he doesn't trust the Wardens?

OK, so you disagree with me and agree with Loghain that those things were weak evidence of a blight. Obviously the so called "great" General was wrong and the Grey Warden (and others) were right.

Loghain's assessment at Ostagar was correct based on what? That's like you and me walking outside to fight two guys in a bar - and then as you exit I run out the front door. Later I can claim that those two guys jumping you is evidence we both would have lost. Loghain deceived the king and left all at Ostagar to die. That's only one reason I say he's not trustworthy.

I totally agree with you that Calain failed to see the importants of gaining allies from the Dwarfs, elves, etc. Because obviously the treaties you were instructed retrieve were meant to be used as toiletpaper.

As for others saying he's trustworthy, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether a man who decieves his longtime friend and ally and abandons him on the battlefield is trustworthy.

Modifié par USArmyParatrooper, 06 février 2011 - 07:21 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
They know Grey Wardens are subject matter experts on the darskpawn. They know they can even sense the darkspawn. And what is this "good reason" he doesn't trust the Wardens?

Some Wardens were collaborating with the darkspawn and the Architect in the Calling. And with Orlais.
And read my post to Joy Division, I've already stated the reasons why someone has good reason to distrust them.

And no one knows the Wardens can do it. They are told they can do it. Why? How? Feelings and premonitions based on what?

Why would you trust a so called "expert" when he doesn't even bother to explain to you what he is saying and the only evidence he uses is "because I feel it". I know I would take whatever he says with a grain of salt, just based on that.

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
OK, so you disagree with me agree with Loghain that those things were weak evidence of a blight. Obviously the so called "great" General was wrong and the Grey Warden (and others) were right.

Because of something Loghain cannot be responsable for. If he could dream about the Archdemon and from this know that there is a blight, then your point would have validity.
The Wardens were right only because of an ability they have that they do not explain to anyone, but expect everyone to believe them.

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
Loghain's assessment at Ostagar was correct based on what? That's like you me walking outside to fight two guys in a bar - and then as you exit I run out the front door. Later I can claim is those two guys jumped you we both would have lost. Loghain deceived the king and left all at Ostagar to die. That's only one reason I say he's not trustworthy.

A very poor example, I am sorry. A better example would be that we both thought that we were going to fight 2 people, but as it turns out, they were 4. And if we both die, they would kill our families. And if I was a glorymonger and an idiot who was too blind to see it. Then yea, you should leave. Because bigger things are at stake here. 

But even that remains a very poor example. Comparing a war with so much at stake with two friends fighting in a bar is meh.

And it was correct based on what we saw in the battle and what the writers said about it.
I attempted to reproduce the battle to show that:
http://social.biowar...308/blog/10285/

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 février 2011 - 07:24 .

[ddv.rsa]

 @USArmyParatrooper: The problem with trying to argue against Loghain is that there is an inner-circle of well educated and eloquent forumites who favour him. Even if you don't agree with what they say, it's hard to find the right arguments to challenge them. You just can't find a hole in their logic. I think it stops many people who lurk from ever speaking up.  
The situation kind of reminds me of Animal Farm. 

[USArmyParatrooper]

So you're basing your assessment of Loghain's trust on a graphic novel that was written AFTER the game had already been released. What context is given during the game that justifies Loghain having mistrust for the wardens? I haven't read the book, but according to the summation a single warden went rogue and Duncan saught their help. What reason did Loghain have not to trust Duncan, according to the book?

And since the analogy is better if they were expecting 2 and there turned out to be 4, please do tell from what lines in the game you draw the conclusion.

If Loghain had ANY intention of actually participating in the battle, then on what grounds does he accuse the wardens of "killing" the king? So they both intended on fighting, Loghain left with his tail between his legs and the wardens held their ground, and on THAT basis the wardens killed the king? 

What is outright said and implied throughout the entire game is the Loghain feels the Wardens gave Calain false hope against an impossible horde, and that Loghain knew all along it was hopeless and thus planned all along his withdraw.

PS: I didn't compare the seriousness or magnitude of a bar fight to a war. Nice try at a cheap shot but please play that game with someone who hasn't been to one.

Modifié par USArmyParatrooper, 06 février 2011 - 07:56 .

[USArmyParatrooper]

ddv.rsa wrote...

 @USArmyParatrooper: The problem with trying to argue against Loghain is that there is an inner-circle of well educated and eloquent forumites who favour him. Even if you don't agree with what they say, it's hard to find the right arguments to challenge them. You just can't find a hole in their logic. I think it stops many people who lurk from ever speaking up.  
The situation kind of reminds me of Animal Farm. 

Who make flawed arguments and pass off conjecture as fact. For example, that everyone would have died if Loghain hadn't betrayed the king IS pure conjecture.

[Sarah1281]

Who make flawed arguments and pass off conjecture as fact. For example, that everyone would have died if Loghain hadn't betrayed the king IS pure conjecture.

And Loghain charging and managing to not only save Cailan but to win the day and still have enough of an army to defend Ferelden with ISN'T?