374 réponses à ce sujet

[USArmyParatrooper]

Sarah1281 wrote...

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?

Who said anything about Loghain having enough of an army left to defend Ferelden? I heard a nasty rumor that the treaties were being saught to unite the soldiers at Redcliff (oops, their Arl was supposed to be dead), the Elves, the Dwarves, and the Circle Magi against the darkspawn.

The outcome of Ostagar if Loghain hadn't betrayed the king is conjecture either way. What is not conjecture is that he did betray the king.

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

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?

Again, read my comment to Joy Division, I explained the political context and why the Warden order is not something one could trust in blindly. 

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
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?

Scapegoating.
A perfectly acceptable political tool that I do not think Loghain  believed, except perhaps superficially (Duncan not attempting to say anything to reason with Cailan).

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
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.

Word of God counters that, David Gaider said that Loghain did plan to fight in the battle, but prepared for the possibility to retreat because yes, he didn't like fighting from this position that Cailan forced him in.
But he did not decide to retreat until the battle itself.

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
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.

Did you even bother reading?

"As such, the wisest course of action was, imo, retreat.

Now this
is NOT in any way, shape or form, an attempt by me to say that the
battle would have been lost as a fact. I can't know that. This is me
rather attempting to understand how the battle transpired, taking an
outside view of the battlefield. And how I believe it would have
transpired had Loghain charged. Or at the very least, this was a strong
possibility considering that the darkspawn were more numerous and that
their lines extended well within the forest and those two are facts. 
And while Loghain does not share my outside view of the battle, he can
still see that the darkspawn are more numerous and he can believe that
Cailan's army was breaking down due to the beacon being lit late.    "

Evidently not.

[KnightofPhoenix]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...
What is not conjecture is that he [i]did betray the king.

"Bertrayal" is a word that comes with a lot of baggage and is subjective.

But I will say that Loghain should have killed the brat long before Ostagar.

[Giggles_Manically]

Once again Loghain has derailed a thread!

[Sarah1281]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

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?

Who said anything about Loghain having enough of an army left to defend Ferelden? I heard a nasty rumor that the treaties were being saught to unite the soldiers at Redcliff (oops, their Arl was supposed to be dead), the Elves, the Dwarves, and the Circle Magi against the darkspawn.

The outcome of Ostagar if Loghain hadn't betrayed the king is conjecture either way. What is not conjecture is that he did betray the king.

You mean treaties that, as far as we know, were never mentioned to Cailan or Loghain? And that had no guarantee of actually being honored? And that it was a freaking miracle that the Archdemon showed itself so early at Denerim and that it was able to be killed? And that even if miraculously all of the treaties could be honored, Eamon alone would have enough forces to stop the horde that crushed the much larger Ferelden army? It's almost like Loghain's being blamed for not meta-gaming.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Sarah1281 wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

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?

Who said anything about Loghain having enough of an army left to defend Ferelden? I heard a nasty rumor that the treaties were being saught to unite the soldiers at Redcliff (oops, their Arl was supposed to be dead), the Elves, the Dwarves, and the Circle Magi against the darkspawn.

The outcome of Ostagar if Loghain hadn't betrayed the king is conjecture either way. What is not conjecture is that he did betray the king.

You mean treaties that, as far as we know, were never mentioned to Cailan or Loghain? And that had no guarantee of actually being honored? And that it was a freaking miracle that the Archdemon showed itself so early at Denerim and that it was able to be killed? And that even if miraculously all of the treaties could be honored, Eamon alone would have enough forces to stop the horde that crushed the much larger Ferelden army? It's almost like Loghain's being blamed for not meta-gaming.

I love that, "as far as we know" it was never mentioned to Cailan. Being that Duncan had allied himself with Calain for defeating the darkspawn, what possible reason would he have to keep this information from him? Does the absence of including every single detail make even common sense things non-existent? When I get home from work I might mention doing change of command inventories, but NOT mention ever picking up a pen. Should my wife then conclude I never touched a pen that day?

It's also obvious throughout the game that all the treaties with the Wardens are taken very seriously. I'm just not understanding why you want to give Loghain all this credit for trying go garner support from the Dwarves, yet you try to trivialize the fact that those plans were already in the works - and from a more reliable source. Or as they say in Orzammar, "Gray Warden you may pass" 

As for the troops at Redcliff, regardless of the size of their army as compared to his own, Loghain tried to kill off a powerful ally

[Sarah1281]

Well, the fact of the matter is that we simply DON'T know. Maybe Duncan was planning on mentioning them after the battle, maybe he did mention them beforehand. I highly doubt he mentioned them before he had them because that would just get everyone's hopes up and afterwards he was only at the meeting for a few minutes before you were an d Cailan was busy arguing with Loghain. In the absence of any indication that Loghain and Cailan knew of the treaties, you cannot treat it as canon. And your analogy really fails. Picking up a pen is really trivial and Loghain having knowledge of the treaties is a bit more important.



The treaties are given some weight, yes. The dwarves let the Warden in to address the Assembly as in the absence of a king only they can deal with it...though they don't. That said, the Chantry has to allow the mages to go (which Greagoir does if the mages are saved) and there's no way of knowing if the Dalish or the dwarves would really take it seriously unless asked. Expecting Loghain to automatically know that treaties four centuries old would be honored immediately (which they're not and you have to solve all of their problems first) is unreasonable. Just because WE see them spoken of gravely before asked to solve all of their problems doesn't mean Loghain sees it or has any way of seeing it.



Are you referring to Eamon or Cailan? If Eamon died (which given the demon's intervention, we don't know if it would have killed him) that doesn't mean his troops would all be worthless. Teagan could command them. If you're talking about Cailan, the darkspawn killed him. If Loghain could have sacrificed his men to save Cailan, should he have done that? Something tells me Cailan wouldn't be much use in such a crisis and then Loghain would have no army.

[ddv.rsa]

I'll probably regret this but.. at the very least, had Cailan remained alive there would have been no civil war. They could have raised a new army immediately to deal with the blight. They could have called on the treaties, gathered the remaining Ferelden forces and would also have had the benefit of the Orlesian reinforcements. Even if Loghain had to sacrifice his entire army to save Cailan, his presence would have allowed them rebuild relatively easily.

Modifié par ddv.rsa, 06 février 2011 - 09:39 .

[Persephone]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

So you're basing your assessment of Loghain's trust on a graphic novel that was written AFTER the game had already been released.

The books were BOTH released before the game.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Well, the fact of the matter is that we simply DON'T know. Maybe Duncan was planning on mentioning them after the battle, maybe he did mention them beforehand. I highly doubt he mentioned them before he had them because that would just get everyone's hopes up and afterwards he was only at the meeting for a few minutes before you were an d Cailan was busy arguing with Loghain. In the absence of any indication that Loghain and Cailan knew of the treaties, you cannot treat it as canon. And your analogy really fails. Picking up a pen is really trivial and Loghain having knowledge of the treaties is a bit more important.

The treaties are given some weight, yes. The dwarves let the Warden in to address the Assembly as in the absence of a king only they can deal with it...though they don't. That said, the Chantry has to allow the mages to go (which Greagoir does if the mages are saved) and there's no way of knowing if the Dalish or the dwarves would really take it seriously unless asked. Expecting Loghain to automatically know that treaties four centuries old would be honored immediately (which they're not and you have to solve all of their problems first) is unreasonable. Just because WE see them spoken of gravely before asked to solve all of their problems doesn't mean Loghain sees it or has any way of seeing it.

Are you referring to Eamon or Cailan? If Eamon died (which given the demon's intervention, we don't know if it would have killed him) that doesn't mean his troops would all be worthless. Teagan could command them. If you're talking about Cailan, the darkspawn killed him. If Loghain could have sacrificed his men to save Cailan, should he have done that? Something tells me Cailan wouldn't be much use in such a crisis and then Loghain would have no army.

You're right that we don't know Calain and Loghain knew the Wardens' plan to use the treaties, much the same way my wife wouldn't know I used a pen at some point during inventories. But one can logically conclude that both examples are extremely probable.

The treaties were given a tremendous amount of weight, which is shown by everyone's reaction to them. That there is a problem to solve before hand doesn't detract from this fact. It's simply built into the game so you have quests. And being that Loghain is a longtime, afluent Fereldan and an astute politician, you really think he doesn't know this? Come on.

I was referring to Eamon. And why do you have to add, "which given the demon's intervention, we don't know if it would have killed him"? What difference does that make? Why sugar coat it? Loghain. Tried. To. Murder. Him. And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not Teagan would unite his troops under a man who murdered his brother.

As for Calain, we'll never know the possible outcome had he not betrayed the king. But even prior to the betrayal, I don't think anyone would have had any doubt that the death of the king and all the men at Ostagar would have resulted from his actions. He deserted knowing the king would be killed as a result. And YES, sacrificing his men to save the king would have been the wise decision. Better to have a civil war, or a single unifying figure? 

[Addai]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

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?

As Persephone has pointed out, the books were released prior to game release and provide the prequel to game events.  They are game lore even if they're not fully explained in the game.  You do hear about the Warden rebellion in the game, at least Sophia Dryden's, but only indirectly.  For instance Loghain tells you that Maric "brought the Wardens back" and Duncan several times mentions that Wardens are in a tenuous position in Ferelden.  It's why there are so few compared to other countries.  It was not just one Warden, and it was multiple incidents.

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?

He is scapegoating the Wardens in my view.  However, he does blame them (unfairly) for encouraging Cailan to fight on the front lines.  That was not his battle plan, he was forced to adapt to Cailan's insistence on using himself and the Wardens to bait the horde and end the Blight in a single major battle.

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.

Yes and no.  I think he saw the eventuality, but was still hoping that he could talk Cailan out of it, and no one expected the horde to be as large as it turned out to be.

[Addai]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Once again Loghain has derailed a thread!

[Zjarcal]

Persephone wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

So you're basing your assessment of Loghain's trust on a graphic novel that was written AFTER the game had already been released.

The books were BOTH released before the game.

Someone else correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the books WRITTEN after the game's story was done but RELEASED before the game itself?

[Sarah1281]

You're right that we don't know Calain and Loghain knew the Wardens' plan to use the treaties, much the same way my wife wouldn't know I used a pen at some point during inventories. But one can logically conclude that both examples are extremely probable.

No it's not. Duncan would not tell anyone that the treaties exist until he finds them because what would be the point? "Yeah, there were some treaties the Grey Wardens made that we could have called upon...if the order hadn't lost them...just so you know, I blame the fact we were exiled for two hundred years." Once the treaties were found, Duncan proceded straight to the Joining and you weren't passed out for long or Alistair and Duncan probably wouldn't have still been staring at you. After that, you and Duncan go straight to the meeting. Duncan didn't make it there very long before you and if he had informed them of the treaties they would probably be talking about that instead of bickering about Cailan remembering or not remembering the battle plan.



Also, if Loghain knew about the treaties then why wouldn't he have people on the lookout for the Wardens at Orzammar's gates and the Circle Tower? If he was worried about the Wardens it only makes sense to worry about the army he knows they can call upon.

The treaties were given a tremendous amount of weight, which is shown by everyone's reaction to them. That there is a problem to solve before hand doesn't detract from this fact. It's simply built into the game so you have quests. And being that Loghain is a longtime, afluent Fereldan and an astute politician, you really think he doesn't know this? Come on.

Loghain is not and never was an astute politician as the game well shows.



Also, those treaties are four centuries old. The people you talk to barely remember them (Vartag's 'I vaugely remember seeing those in the Shaperate', for example) and though they all essentially agree to support you, I don't see why it's stupid to not automatically assume that four centuries old treaties for a Blight you don't believe in will be immediately and unquestionably honored (which they're not. Really, the treaties just get you access to the treaty groups and they'd follow you without the treaties by the time you're done).

I was referring to Eamon. And why do you have to add, "which given the demon's intervention, we don't know if it would have killed him"? What difference does that make? Why sugar coat it? Loghain. Tried. To. Murder. Him. And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not Teagan would unite his troops under a man who murdered his brother.

I'm not sugar-coating it. At all. Word of God says that Eamon wasn't supposed to die. You may or may not accept WoG but I do so I'm content to believe what they say. Also, they sent an elf (whose name escapes me for the moment) to keep watch and report if Eamon was dying so Loghain could send an antidote...which admittedly he may have not done if the civil war was still brewing.



The difference it makes is that while poisoning someone and leaving them in a coma is still a horrible thing to do, it is better than attempting to poison him to death. Still no sugar-coating.



And don't 'I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not Teagan would unite his troops under a man who murdered his brother' me. Why the hell would EAMON unite his troops under a man who poisoned him? Teagan doesn't have to unite his troops under Loghain and Eamon certainly doesn't. He just needs to inherit his brother's troops.

As for Loghain, we'll never know the possible outcome had he not betrayed the king. But even prior to the betrayal, I don't think anyone would have had any doubt that the death of the king and all the men at Ostagar would have resulted from his actions. He deserted knowing the king would be killed as a result. And YES, sacrificing his men to save the king would have been the wise decision. Better to have a civil war, or a single unifying figure?

If the king would not listen to him telling him to stay off the front lines where he would be in some of the worst danger, what was Loghain supposed to have done? Drugged his food and kept him off the battlefield by force? Loghain, not being particularly good at politics, did not anticipate a civil war and if he hadn't been so heavy-handed in demanding the Bannorn accept him as regent (or if he hadn't tried to be regent and just let Anora rule) then it's entirely possible that it could have been avoided. A king dying does not always lead to a civil war. There wasn't one when Maric died, after all.

[Giggles_Manically]

Addai67 wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Once again Loghain has derailed a thread!

reluctant snip.

I made one a long time ago:

[Addai]

Zjarcal wrote...

Persephone wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

So you're basing your assessment of Loghain's trust on a graphic novel that was written AFTER the game had already been released.

The books were BOTH released before the game.

Someone else correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the books WRITTEN after the game's story was done but RELEASED before the game itself?

Judging from DG's statements, the main game story was pretty well blocked out by the time he wrote the novels.  He said he based Loghain's character on the game story and not the other way around.  However, we also know that they were changing the game story around fairly late.

[erilben]

I don't know when David Gaider wrote the Stolen Throne, but it was released in March 2009. That's was to be the release month of DAO for PC. However, EA delayed it to November because they wanted to release all versions at the same time.

Also, everything major was probably locked down months before March 2009.  A dev on the DA2 forums says it was already too late for Bioware to implement any suggestions into DA2 six months ago.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Sarah1281 wrote...

You're right that we don't know Calain and Loghain knew the Wardens' plan to use the treaties, much the same way my wife wouldn't know I used a pen at some point during inventories. But one can logically conclude that both examples are extremely probable.

No it's not. Duncan would not tell anyone that the treaties exist until he finds them because what would be the point? "Yeah, there were some treaties the Grey Wardens made that we could have called upon...if the order hadn't lost them...just so you know, I blame the fact we were exiled for two hundred years." Once the treaties were found, Duncan proceded straight to the Joining and you weren't passed out for long or Alistair and Duncan probably wouldn't have still been staring at you. After that, you and Duncan go straight to the meeting. Duncan didn't make it there very long before you and if he had informed them of the treaties they would probably be talking about that instead of bickering about Cailan remembering or not remembering the battle plan.

Also, if Loghain knew about the treaties then why wouldn't he have people on the lookout for the Wardens at Orzammar's gates and the Circle Tower? If he was worried about the Wardens it only makes sense to worry about the army he knows they can call upon.

The treaties were given a tremendous amount of weight, which is shown by everyone's reaction to them. That there is a problem to solve before hand doesn't detract from this fact. It's simply built into the game so you have quests. And being that Loghain is a longtime, afluent Fereldan and an astute politician, you really think he doesn't know this? Come on.

Loghain is not and never was an astute politician as the game well shows.

Also, those treaties are four centuries old. The people you talk to barely remember them (Vartag's 'I vaugely remember seeing those in the Shaperate', for example) and though they all essentially agree to support you, I don't see why it's stupid to not automatically assume that four centuries old treaties for a Blight you don't believe in will be immediately and unquestionably honored (which they're not. Really, the treaties just get you access to the treaty groups and they'd follow you without the treaties by the time you're done).

I was referring to Eamon. And why do you have to add, "which given the demon's intervention, we don't know if it would have killed him"? What difference does that make? Why sugar coat it? Loghain. Tried. To. Murder. Him. And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not Teagan would unite his troops under a man who murdered his brother.

I'm not sugar-coating it. At all. Word of God says that Eamon wasn't supposed to die. You may or may not accept WoG but I do so I'm content to believe what they say. Also, they sent an elf (whose name escapes me for the moment) to keep watch and report if Eamon was dying so Loghain could send an antidote...which admittedly he may have not done if the civil war was still brewing.

The difference it makes is that while poisoning someone and leaving them in a coma is still a horrible thing to do, it is better than attempting to poison him to death. Still no sugar-coating.

And don't 'I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about whether or not Teagan would unite his troops under a man who murdered his brother' me. Why the hell would EAMON unite his troops under a man who poisoned him? Teagan doesn't have to unite his troops under Loghain and Eamon certainly doesn't. He just needs to inherit his brother's troops.

As for Loghain, we'll never know the possible outcome had he not betrayed the king. But even prior to the betrayal, I don't think anyone would have had any doubt that the death of the king and all the men at Ostagar would have resulted from his actions. He deserted knowing the king would be killed as a result. And YES, sacrificing his men to save the king would have been the wise decision. Better to have a civil war, or a single unifying figure?

If the king would not listen to him telling him to stay off the front lines where he would be in some of the worst danger, what was Loghain supposed to have done? Drugged his food and kept him off the battlefield by force? Loghain, not being particularly good at politics, did not anticipate a civil war and if he hadn't been so heavy-handed in demanding the Bannorn accept him as regent (or if he hadn't tried to be regent and just let Anora rule) then it's entirely possible that it could have been avoided. A king dying does not always lead to a civil war. There wasn't one when Maric died, after all.

Yes, it is. Allies in a war share pertinent information like that. The fact that they were trying to track down treaties that mandate more aid would be a strange thing to leave out. Major decisions on a macro level must be done in a coordinated way. With the king wanting reinforcements from the Orlesians surely the topic of outside allies had been discussed.

Please post a link to your claim that Loghain poisoning Eamon was not an attempt on his life, and that he had an antidote ready to save him. Also please explain how poisoning Eamon was beneficial for battling the darkspawn.

I agree that if Calain stayed off the front lines he would still be alive. But also if Loghain didn't pretend to have his back only to scurry away with his tail between his legs after the battle began.... he might be still be alive as well.

Did Maric die in a manner that meant his successor A: Would be the person many consider responsible for his death - and B: Be a person that is NOT of his own blood? 

[Addai]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Yes, it is. Allies in a war share pertinent information like that. The fact that they were trying to track down treaties that mandate more aid would be a strange thing to leave out. Major decisions on a macro level must be done in a coordinated way. With the king wanting reinforcements from the Orlesians surely the topic of outside allies had been discussed.

Neither Loghain nor Cailan is very serious about seeking outside allies.  They both believe, for different reasons, that Fereldans can handle the defense on their own.  Cailan talking to the Orlesians is about more than the immediate threat of Blight, which neither Cailan nor Loghain is taking very seriously.

Please post a link to your claim that Loghain poisoning Eamon was not an attempt on his life, and that he had an antidote ready to save him. Also please explain how poisoning Eamon was beneficial for battling the darkspawn.

The two are not related.  Here's the link.  The game was originally meant to revolve around a plot line where Cailan was going to ditch Anora for Empress Celene and Loghain found out about it.  They cut that out, but some vestiges of the story line remain.  One is that Loghain wanted to give Eamon a "time out" so that Cailan would be cut off from a supporter.

David Gaider wrote...

AndreaDraco wrote...
But what about the poisoning of Arl Eamon through Jowan? Wasn't this decided and accomplished before Ostagar?

Yes, but this wasn't done in preparation for Ostagar. This was done in anticipation that Loghain and Cailan would have a showdown, and Arl Eamon would always solidly be in Cailan's camp. Like I said, Loghain is the sort of man that will ensure his enemies are defeated before they're engaged.

I know this isn't spelled out, but Eamon was never supposed to actually die from the poison. It would keep him sick for a long time -- certainly long enough for Isolde to try all their options and send out knights looking for remedies -- and then, once the confrontation with Cailan was done, Eamon could be given the cure. The elf was sent to Redcliffe to keep an eye on things and watch for news of Eamon getting worse, and if that happened then Loghain could send the cure immediately. Or, at least, that was the intention. If Eamon died in the name of keeping Ferelden safe from Orlais, Loghain wouldn't shed too many tears over it.

Modifié par Addai67, 07 février 2011 - 04:16 .

[HolyAvenger]

See I hate reading stuff like that, which isn't in the game because it means massively meta-gaming decisions. My rule is to ignore stuff my PC does not and cannot know...including the novels.

[Addai]

HolyAvenger wrote...

See I hate reading stuff like that, which isn't in the game because it means massively meta-gaming decisions. My rule is to ignore stuff my PC does not and cannot know...including the novels.

Is your PC at all educated?  Then they would know the history of Ferelden, and possibly some of its politics as well.  Obviously doesn't apply to a dwarf casteless or Dalish elf.  Limiting your knowledge of game lore probably means you know much less than your PC should.  Edit:  Though it's fine to roleplay them as having limited knowledge.  I think that's why the game doesn't spell everything out- because you are supposed to figure out the hanging threads as you personally interpret them.

Modifié par Addai67, 07 février 2011 - 04:28 .

[Sarah1281]

Yes, it is. Allies in a war share pertinent information like that. The fact that they were trying to track down treaties that mandate more aid would be a strange thing to leave out. Major decisions on a macro level must be done in a coordinated way. With the king wanting reinforcements from the Orlesians surely the topic of outside allies had been discussed.

Please don't bring up the freaking pen again, but there is no indication that Duncan told them. In addition to the fact that it isn't done in your hearing and Duncan had no time to tell them before you showed up, if Loghain knew that you had treaties with the mages and the dwarves (he gets a pass on the elves since those had to be tracked down) then he would be an idiot not to keep an eye out for you there...especially since he already sent a man to the dwarves who didn't even get your description and doesn't realize you're a Warden until you identify yourself.

I agree that if Calain stayed off the front lines he would still be alive. But also if Loghain didn't pretend to have his back only to scurry away with his tail between his legs after the battle began.... he might be still be alive as well.

Since Loghain WASN'T 100% decided on leaving yet and only had the retreat plan as the 'if things go too badly for us to get ourselves slaughtered over' back-plan and half-ass general should have in reserve, what should he have done? Warned Cailan that if things got so bad that he wouldn't be able to do anything but send his troops to die needlessly then he was going to leave? Threaten not to fight? He already kept trying to convince Cailan not to fight to the point where Cailan was getting exasperated about it.

Did Maric die in a manner that meant his successor A: Would be the person many consider responsible for his death - and B: Be a person that is NOT of his own blood?

Many people actually didn't consider Loghain responsible for Cailan's death. It's only rumors from survivors who didn't really have the best viewpoint and all the nobles were either killed there or not at Ostagar. And the whole blood thing isn't the end-all, be-all. Maric's death seems a pretty ordinary shipwreck and yet there was a campaign of unknown strength to put Bryce Cousland on the throne.

[HolyAvenger]

Addai67 wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

See I hate reading stuff like that, which isn't in the game because it means massively meta-gaming decisions. My rule is to ignore stuff my PC does not and cannot know...including the novels.

Is your PC at all educated?  Then they would know the history of Ferelden, and possibly some of its politics as well.  Obviously doesn't apply to a dwarf casteless or Dalish elf.  Limiting your knowledge of game lore probably means you know much less than your PC should.  Edit:  Though it's fine to roleplay them as having limited knowledge.  I think that's why the game doesn't spell everything out- because you are supposed to figure out the hanging threads as you personally interpret them.

I don't mean the general history of Ferelden stuff (the rebellions, the hatred of the Orlesians etc), I mean the things like the poisoning isn't supposed to be fatal. Or the specifics of what went down between Loghain/Maric/Grey Wardens in the Deep Roads. No one knows that. Not even a human or dwarven noble.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Sarah1281 wrote...
Please don't bring up the freaking pen again, but there is no indication that Duncan told them. In addition to the fact that it isn't done in your hearing and Duncan had no time to tell them before you showed up, if Loghain knew that you had treaties with the mages and the dwarves (he gets a pass on the elves since those had to be tracked down) then he would be an idiot not to keep an eye out for you there...especially since he already sent a man to the dwarves who didn't even get your description and doesn't realize you're a Warden until you identify yourself.

Right, just as there is no indication I told my wife about the pen. But she can use her freaking brain to figure out it's extremely unlikely I didn't use a pen at some point. I'm sorry, did I bring up the pen again? I fully agree that Logain would have used this information to send people after you. I mean, just imagine if assassins tried to kill you enrout to these locations, or even AT those locations in some cases! That would be crazy! 

Since Loghain WASN'T 100% decided on leaving yet and only had the retreat plan as the 'if things go too badly for us to get ourselves slaughtered over' back-plan and half-ass general should have in reserve, what should he have done? Warned Cailan that if things got so bad that he wouldn't be able to do anything but send his troops to die needlessly then he was going to leave? Threaten not to fight? He already kept trying to convince Cailan not to fight to the point where Cailan was getting exasperated about it.

Even IF he was "undecided" whether or not he would betray the king, he did in the end. On that note, I would like a citation from you since you claim to know definitively what his intentions were.

Many people actually didn't consider Loghain responsible for Cailan's death. It's only rumors from survivors who didn't really have the best viewpoint and all the nobles were either killed there or not at Ostagar. And the whole blood thing isn't the end-all, be-all. Maric's death seems a pretty ordinary shipwreck and yet there was a campaign of unknown strength to put Bryce Cousland on the throne.

OK, you got me there. Because if many people did consider Loghain responsible... crazy stuff might be happening, like nobels demanding answers from him, saying things like "your withdraw was most... fortuitous" and there might even be an impending civil war.