213 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

KJandrew wrote...

Eamon didn't fight in the rebellion, he and Teagan were hiding in the Free Marches the entire time.

Loghain says that "You fought with us once", while Isolde's codex says that "Isolde met Eamon, not realizing he was the rightful heir to her father's domain, and quickly became smitten with him for being part of the resistance"

Modifié par Wulfram, 09 avril 2011 - 09:42 .

[KJandrew]

Wulfram wrote...

KJandrew wrote...

Eamon didn't fight in the rebellion, he and Teagan were hiding in the Free Marches the entire time.

Loghain says that "You fought with us once", while Isolde's codex says that "Isolde met Eamon, not realizing he was the rightful heir to her father's domain, and quickly became smitten with him for being part of the resistance"

The Stolen Throne states that both Eamon and Teagan were too young to fight so the father Rendorn Guerrin sent them to the Free Marches to hide.

[Vilegrim]

mrsph wrote...

Both had good reasons to be spared. Both also had good reasons to be killed.

But I find Anders actions to be more despicable.

I found the reverse, as Loghain could see the army of omnicidal maniacs that his actions would unleash on Fereldan, and decided that loosing most if not all of the kingdom to the Blight was a price worth paying.  Anders on  the other hand had been personnaly and had seen people he knew, hounded mercililessly, locked away for live without trial, lobotomised etc. And had decided to fight, had made the choice that going down fighting was better than perpetual imprisonment, if you condem him you must also condem the Founding Fathers (who had been pushed far less hard than the mages had)

[errant_knight]

Vilegrim wrote...

mrsph wrote...

Both had good reasons to be spared. Both also had good reasons to be killed.

But I find Anders actions to be more despicable.

I found the reverse, as Loghain could see the army of omnicidal maniacs that his actions would unleash on Fereldan, and decided that loosing most if not all of the kingdom to the Blight was a price worth paying.  Anders on  the other hand had been personnaly and had seen people he knew, hounded mercililessly, locked away for live without trial, lobotomised etc. And had decided to fight, had made the choice that going down fighting was better than perpetual imprisonment, if you condem him you must also condem the Founding Fathers (who had been pushed far less hard than the mages had)

I found both despicable, which is why I thought both deserved execution. Neither of their actions were acceptable or forgivable to me.

[The Angry One]

Vilegrim wrote...

I found the reverse, as Loghain could see the army of omnicidal maniacs that his actions would unleash on Fereldan, and decided that loosing most if not all of the kingdom to the Blight was a price worth paying.

Loghain is guilty of miscalculation with regards to the Darkspawn, nothing more.
There was no Archdemon at Ostagar, the only proof that it was a Blight at that time was the Grey Wardens saying so and Loghain doesn't trust them at all.

Anders on  the other hand had been personnaly and had seen people he knew, hounded mercililessly, locked away for live without trial, lobotomised etc. And had decided to fight, had made the choice that going down fighting was better than perpetual imprisonment, if you condem him you must also condem the Founding Fathers (who had been pushed far less hard than the mages had)

He saw this in ONE circle and unilaterally decided to impose his will on ALL circles.
That makes him a massive hypocrite. He's not giving the mages' freedom, he simply replaced the Chantry with himself as dictator of what the mages must do.

[TobiTobsen]

The Angry One wrote...

Anders on  the other hand had been personnaly and had seen people he knew, hounded mercililessly, locked away for live without trial, lobotomised etc. And had decided to fight, had made the choice that going down fighting was better than perpetual imprisonment, if you condem him you must also condem the Founding Fathers (who had been pushed far less hard than the mages had)

He saw this in ONE circle and unilaterally decided to impose his will on ALL circles.
That makes him a massive hypocrite. He's not giving the mages' freedom, he simply replaced the Chantry with himself as dictator of what the mages must do.

He is doing stuff like that since Awakening. I'm pretty sure the other mages in the circle of Ferelden found it awesome that their outdoor/swimming/athletic hours were cancelled for an indefinite time after he used them to run away again. Hooray for Anders.
And thats just the stuff we know about. Wouldn't suprise me if it also was his fault that the combat training was cancelled. He probably hit a templar with a staff before running away or something.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 09 avril 2011 - 04:52 .

[The Angry One]

True but at least back then he said he was out for himself. He may have been a jerk but at least he was honest.
Now Vengeance has turned him into a self-righteous monster who thinks only he knows best for everyone.

[theauthority]

[Plaintiff wrote...]


«But Loghain has no proof and no reason to be suspicious until you play the Return to Ostagar DLC. Suspicion without basis is the very definition of paranoia. His strategy might be flawless, except for one gaping hole. The Orlesians are not the clear and present danger. The darkspawn are. Even if it's not a true Blight, their numbers are enormous and following the battle of Ostagar they take a lot of territory in short order.» [end quote]

I doubt he was totally unaware of Cailan's intentions before Ostagar (or Return to Ostagar DLC), he was always close to the royal family. Maybe suspicious but, in the end, not even Cailan believed it was truly a Blight; Duncan's concerns fell on deaf ears. Half of the botched assault should be blamed on the Wardens: if Duncan explained (with proof) why they really need the Wardens to stop a Blight, well, I think even Loghain would have been convinced - he has no problem believing Riordan's words before the Battle of Denerim. Otherwise, I'm entitled to think that Darkspawns are there just because, no apparent motive.
These things notwithstanding, Loghain's plan to keep Orlesians at bay, paradoxically, worked: the Warden reunites Ferelden, proving the country could fight without external intervention (Dwarves and Elves/Werewolves are neutral towards foreign politics, I'm not talking about raw numbers). All in all, Ferelden was lucky the Blight was stopped before it reached its critical mass.
----------------

[Plaintiff wrote...]

«It's not foolish to want to ally yourself with those who are stronger than you. Indpendence is a noble goal, but when you risk total annihilation, it's time to swallow your pride.
I find it amusing that people consider Anora a 'capable' ruler. I see no evidence of that, aside from her own assertions. She claims she was the brains behind the crown but as it turns out Cailan had his own plan for Ferelden that she knew nothing about, and doesn't appear to even have suspected. If she was the capable ruler she claimed, why did she defer to Loghain? If she wants to be queen, she should've stepped up and taken her opprtunity there and then instead of hiding behind daddy. She had her chance and she blew it. Alistair at least is compassionate and humble, as all rulers should be, sees the injustices occuring within Ferelden and most importantly, wishes to change them. As warden, I'll take the brave, honest, sensitive man who's stuck by me doggedly over an unhinged tyrant who backstabs his friends, or some hoity-toity **** who's all talk with nothing to actually back her up.
Even if Alistair were Eamon's puppet (which I doubt, Eamon shows no desire to rule anything, he just wants a peaceful life with his family), would that be so bad? Eamon fought in the war against the Orlesians, jsut as Loghain did, and he's damn sight more trustworthy on a personal level.» [end quote]

Anora's attempt to become queen and only ruler was hindered by Loghain himself. Yet, she manages to turn the tide "hiring" the Warden to set her free. Loghain admits manipulation when you talk to him after the Landsmeet. This alone speaks volumes about her no-nonsense attitude.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, even Eamon remains silent as Anora explains she was the true politician behind Cailan.
So, personally I prefer a cunning politician to a wannabe do-gooder who's always escaped his responsibilities: Alistair likes to be led but, at the same time, he's afraid of consequences. What annoys me is how he retaliates on the Warden over difficult decisions (Connor, for example) but he wouldn't have the guts to do it himself.
Being a Warden is easy for his mindset: you fight Darkspawn for the greater good, that's it. I know that the Epilogue states he'll be a capable king but, in the actual game, I see no hints of this evolution.
Nope, I'm sorry, pragmatism over sentiments, I'm entrusting somebody with a whole country. I can see Alistair on the throne only if wed to Anora but not by himself. That's despite of Loghain's execution or not. 
Either way, there's a downside: the royal dynasty is, well over. Alistair+Warden=fertility problems, same with Anora+Alistair. Alistair, if ruling alone, ain't marrying anybody as far as I know. That's disheartening, on a second thought. 

[SupidSeep]

I like to think that I would go by Mass Effect 2 Samara / Justicar's view:

Both Loghain and Anders took actions that caused the death of many that may not need to die. It does not matter what they were or had done before (a hero of Feralden / a compassionate healer to Feralden refugees in Kirkwall) - they should die for what they had done.

That said, I prefer the way Loghain died - he stood straight and faced the Warden / Allistair swinging the executioner's blade that took his life. I personally felt a grim satisfaction - and a bit of respect for the man.

In contrast, when I stabbed Anders in the back, I felt disgusted with him and with the deed.

[The Angry One]

With regards to how they died. I too prefer Loghain. Not so much for the positioning, but Loghain has lost, he knows he's lost and he accepts that. He tells Anora to stop protesting and accepts his fate.

Anders accepts his fate, not because he is facing reality but the exact opposite. He is fully in deluded mode now, expecting to die and be a martyr, his name remembered for all time as the mage who freed all mages instead of a crazy abomination and butcher.
So you're basically killing someone who's mentally ill and giving satisfaction to a deluded terrorist. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[stobie]

If Loghain dies to Alistair in the duel, it's ok, but ugh, I hate just stabbing him. Stabbing Anders in the back feels even worse. (btw, why DO mages keep stabbing people? Wouldn't an nice bolt of lightning be quicker, more thorough & less - Stabby?)

My Warden certainly had a lot more power - my Champion just seems overwhelmed by everyone else's madness. She jostles her party around so as not to annoy someone based on reasonable choices. (No, I will *not* kill the nice templar, & I *will* send the nice boy to his relatives.) In the end, I'm sure she'd rather just make them get along & make concessions, & would walk off feeling nothing she did was right. My Warden was ridiculously powerful. Elf mage? You want me to pick your king? 'K... (Granted, her choices had flaws, too - neither Dwarf king was perfect - she might have picked some reasonable dwarf from the tavern, given real choice)

Personally, I thought Anders was just Chaotic Good gone bad & taken to extremes, and Loghain was the other side. Lawful Not Quite So Good. I felt a bit sorry for Justice myself. I loved him in Awakening. (and Sigrun & Nathaniel) I wished that in this Fade, he'd asked for my help. (Help! I'm trapped here, & this guy has *really* lost it!) Anders says he has corrupted Justice yet we speak as if it's Vengeance's doing. Anyway, I missed Justice

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Angry One wrote...
So you're basically killing someone who's mentally ill and giving satisfaction to a deluded terrorist. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Dean proposed doign something that might alleviate that, but it's not an option sadly.

Tranquilize him. You avoid making him a martyr,  and you dont' give him what he wants.

[The Angry One]

stobie wrote...

Personally, I thought Anders was just Chaotic Good gone bad & taken to extremes, and Loghain was the other side. Lawful Not Quite So Good. I felt a bit sorry for Justice myself. I loved him in Awakening. (and Sigrun & Nathaniel) I wished that in this Fade, he'd asked for my help. (Help! I'm trapped here, & this guy has *really* lost it!) Anders says he has corrupted Justice yet we speak as if it's Vengeance's doing. Anyway, I missed Justice

Anders thinks he corrupted Justice. But it's clear that Justice is contributing to this as much as Anders is.
Remember what Justice says in Awakening. "Demons are spirits who have been corrupted by their desires".

[Grymgris]

The Chantry is a plague upon the world of Theadas, so someone needed to spark the flame of revolution, might as well be Anders.

And as for killing innocents, does`nt anyone remember the quest where you met Leliana and talked about what the Chantry would do to the entire city of Kirkwall if they were not happy with the report that Leliana would give them?

The only wrong Anders did was not telling Hawke about his plans, so that i as the player could have enjoyed it more knowing i was a part of it ^^

[SupidSeep]

The Angry One wrote...

So you're basically killing someone who's mentally ill and giving satisfaction to a deluded terrorist. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Nicely said.  I wanted to put something about how low I consider Anders at that point but it would have been extremely distasteful, especially compared to your comment

[sevalaricgirl]

So Loghain didn't kill innocent people? I'd say sending assassins after the only two wardens in Fereldon (though not killing them) was trying to kill innocent people. Sending slaves to Tevinter, what did he think was going to happen to them. Many slaves are killed by their masters. Anders sin was less than Loghain's. Anders thought he was doing the right thing. Loghain knew he wasn't.

[Addai]

Plaintiff wrote...
But Loghain has no proof and no reason to be suspicious until you play the Return to Ostagar DLC. Suspicion without basis is the very definition of paranoia. His strategy might be flawless, except for one gaping hole. The Orlesians are not the clear and present danger. The darkspawn are. Even if it's not a true Blight, their numbers are enormous and following the battle of Ostagar they take a lot of territory in short order.

In RtO he says "I knew it."  That means he did have suspicions.  You think he wouldn't notice something if Cailan was planning to set Anora aside?  Alone the fact that Cailan made the deal to bring chevaliers into Ferelden shows that something was going on.  He may not have realized the extent of it, but he knew that Cailan was dealing with Orlais and doing so recklessly.

And it's fine for you to say that the Orlesians aren't the clear and present danger.  Four legions of chevaliers- the shock troops that committed the most heinous crimes during the occupation- are massed at Ferelden's border.  He considers both of these things threats to the country, and not without reason.

It's not foolish to want to ally yourself with those who are stronger than you. Indpendence is a noble goal, but when you risk total annihilation, it's time to swallow your pride.

So you admit that the Orlesians would have invaded Ferelden sooner or later?  See above.  You're contradicting yourself.

Modifié par Addai67, 09 avril 2011 - 07:12 .

[Addai]

KJandrew wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

KJandrew wrote...

Eamon didn't fight in the rebellion, he and Teagan were hiding in the Free Marches the entire time.

Loghain says that "You fought with us once", while Isolde's codex says that "Isolde met Eamon, not realizing he was the rightful heir to her father's domain, and quickly became smitten with him for being part of the resistance"

The Stolen Throne states that both Eamon and Teagan were too young to fight so the father Rendorn Guerrin sent them to the Free Marches to hide.

I take it to mean that by the tail end of the rebellion, Eamon was old enough to join the rebels.  The war continued three years after the Battle of River Dane and TST says little about this, so in that time Eamon probably came back to Ferelden and fought with them.

[Addai]

sevalaricgirl wrote...

So Loghain didn't kill innocent people? I'd say sending assassins after the only two wardens in Fereldon (though not killing them) was trying to kill innocent people. Sending slaves to Tevinter, what did he think was going to happen to them. Many slaves are killed by their masters. Anders sin was less than Loghain's. Anders thought he was doing the right thing. Loghain knew he wasn't.

But he did believe that he had to do what he did.  It is not dissimilar to my Wardens' reasoning when they do questionable things because if they didn't, the whole country might end up obliterated.  I agree that the slavery part is the least defensible.

As for the Wardens, once again, the order is not a bunch of white knights.  Probably if it was not a time of war, he would have just expelled the order again, but he was conducting a civil war and believed Howe when he said that the Wardens would align against him in it.  It was an act of war.  If you're going to defend Anders as carrying out a just war, then it's the same.

Modifié par Addai67, 09 avril 2011 - 06:29 .

[KJandrew]

Grymgris wrote...

The Chantry is a plague upon the world of Theadas, so someone needed to spark the flame of revolution, might as well be Anders.

And as for killing innocents, does`nt anyone remember the quest where you met Leliana and talked about what the Chantry would do to the entire city of Kirkwall if they were not happy with the report that Leliana would give them?

The only wrong Anders did was not telling Hawke about his plans, so that i as the player could have enjoyed it more knowing i was a part of it ^^

So the sisters and brothers inside the templars weren't innocent. The commoners and nobles praying inside were they innocent?

[Grymgris]

KJandrew wrote...

Grymgris wrote...

The Chantry is a plague upon the world of Theadas, so someone needed to spark the flame of revolution, might as well be Anders.

And as for killing innocents, does`nt anyone remember the quest where you met Leliana and talked about what the Chantry would do to the entire city of Kirkwall if they were not happy with the report that Leliana would give them?

The only wrong Anders did was not telling Hawke about his plans, so that i as the player could have enjoyed it more knowing i was a part of it ^^

So the sisters and brothers inside the templars weren't innocent. The commoners and nobles praying inside were they innocent?

The Chantry had plans to kill everyone in Kirkwall, even if they only suspected that the mages would revolt, so any supporters of the Chantry can`t really be said to be innocent no matter how ignorant they may be of the chantrys corruption.

[The Angry One]

Grymgris wrote...

The Chantry had plans to kill everyone in Kirkwall, even if they only suspected that the mages would revolt, so any supporters of the Chantry can`t really be said to be innocent no matter how ignorant they may be of the chantrys corruption.

The Chantry had no such plans. They were considering an exalted march, that's not the same thing.
Elthina fears innocents will die due to collateral damage, because invading a city is not exactly a surgical strike and exalted marches have never been subtle in their methods.

[Grymgris]

The Angry One wrote...

Grymgris wrote...

The Chantry had plans to kill everyone in Kirkwall, even if they only suspected that the mages would revolt, so any supporters of the Chantry can`t really be said to be innocent no matter how ignorant they may be of the chantrys corruption.

The Chantry had no such plans. They were considering an exalted march, that's not the same thing.
Elthina fears innocents will die due to collateral damage, because invading a city is not exactly a surgical strike and exalted marches have never been subtle in their methods.

I loaded up an old save just to check if my first impression was right or not, and there is definetly talk about making the entire city of Kirkwall an enemy of the Chantry, of course you can interprate that the way you like, but making an entire city as an enemy does`nt sound to me as they are only comming after the mages 

Modifié par Grymgris, 09 avril 2011 - 08:57 .

[The Angry One]

It means they're going to invade and take over, placing everything under their rule, removing the guard and possibly the existing Templars and the leadership, hence the entire city becomes an enemy.
It doesn't follow that they'll put every single citizen to the sword.

[Grymgris]

The Angry One wrote...

It means they're going to invade and take over, placing everything under their rule, removing the guard and possibly the existing Templars and the leadership, hence the entire city becomes an enemy.
It doesn't follow that they'll put every single citizen to the sword.

Or it could mean that they decide that the entire city needs to be "purged" from the "mage corruption".

And it also makes sense that the chantry would want to get rid of as many wittneses as possible, so now one will spread the word as of why the mages rebelled.