240 réponses à ce sujet

[Melra]

Anora should've been given to the Darkspawn with Branka.

[kesayo2]

I wish there was a way to have Anora executed. Enough said.

[ReubenLiew]

[quote]Akka le Vil wrote...
It was well within her character to
do such a thing, in the end, and thus it was justified to do what she
did. Not that is was justifiable in the eyes of your character or
whatever, because that cannot be applied generally as each player is
different in terms of how they quantify actions as moral.[/quote]
Nobody says it was not "in-character", on the contrary. What people say is that HER CHARACTER is despicable.

Do not mix "a badly written character" with "a despicable character". They are completely unrelated. One is about the quality of her writting, the other is a moral judgement on the character itself.

[/quote]

And I never claimed that they were not right in claiming she was despicable, nor did I tell them they think it was a badly written character. I simply replied that she was justified in what she was doing is because she did exactly what normal politicians in their right mind would've done at the point, a question that was posed to me about how her actions were 'justified'.

[Taerda]

[

ReubenLiew wrote...

Maybe Bioware decided that killing
her would be simply too hard to justify. She is queen, and it's like
they're going to let you walk after killing the Queen of Fereldan. With
Bhelen you had Harrowmont, with Loghain you had the Queen and Arl Eamon
and the majority of the Landsmeet behind you.

If you wanted to
kill the Queen I think a lot of the landsmeet would've raised up in
serious protest. I can see why people want to kill her, I do, but I
don't think people see just how badly this would affect
storyline.

I don't think the storyline for the current installment would have been as affected as you think... at worse your older brother as the Heir to Coursland would have the strongest claim as well as the Arlman of Redcliffe. Now, if you are talking about future sequels for Bioware, then there can be a case made that she is necessary - something I won't pretend to know.

If she is "neccessary" for future titles, then the whole plot concerning the Landsmeet is very determanistic and in my opinion, poorly written, essentially misleading the player into thinking she has a choice when in reality the writers never planned on giving the player a say in the first place.

[ReubenLiew]

No, I don't think having her killed AFTER you put Alistair on the throne would've affect the storyline, and this happens exactly. You put her in a tower, and leave her to rot.

What I argue is that some people want to cut her down where she stands. Before the landsmeet even! I mean, can you imagine the sheer disaster that situation would be? In the storyline you can make alistair king, and leave her out of the equation, and lock her away or be assassinated quietly after everything's died down, so yes you have the choice.

What I don't understad is why nobody seems to take this as a choice. What I see is that people are asking to PERSONALLY murder the ex-queen in the middle of the landsmeet, where her crimes (in the eyes of the landsmeet in any case) are virtually none.

I do not think it was poorly written at all. It makes a lot of sense that you cannot be her personal executor, and later on in the epilogue nothing is mentioned of her, maybe people want closure on that but that is a minor point.

[Akka le Vil]

ReubenLiew wrote...

Well actually it seems like a lot of people seem to deny that she has no reason to do what she did, and I called them out on it.

From what I read, it's not really "no reason", it's rather "no morally justifiable reasons". Anora doesn't look like a nutcase, and all her decisions seem very calculated.
The point being, her calculations are all about selfishness and her personnal benefit (at least, that's how they ended up looking in the game), so players find her repulsive and want to kill her. Nothing unreasonable in this. As she's a rather important character, and wanting to kill is a rather common roleplaying idea, I think that the option to kill her should have been implemented - at the very least, the attempt.
Same principle as for the desire to chop the head of Morrigan near the ending : if something is very likely to be chosen by a sizable portion of the playerbase, it should be a possible choice. It's the reason we have several dialogue option each time, right ? To be able to make different choice according to what kind of character we want to play ?

Certainly, they just can't fit EVERY possible point of view and answer imaginable - it would be inifinte, and require ungodly amount of work for some very weird approach of the game. But the "main" ways should be generally available (and they ARE generally available in the rest of the game), that's what a RPG is about after all. And killing Anora, especially considering how despicable she is and how you can often ends up opposing her, can be reasonably considered one of the "main" ways.

[Taerda]

ReubenLiew wrote...

No, I don't think having her killed AFTER you put Alistair on the throne would've affect the storyline, and this happens exactly. You put her in a tower, and leave her to rot.
What I argue is that some people want to cut her down where she stands. Before the landsmeet even! I mean, can you imagine the sheer disaster that situation would be? In the storyline you can make alistair king, and leave her out of the equation, and lock her away or be assassinated quietly after everything's died down, so yes you have the choice.
What I don't understad is why nobody seems to take this as a choice. What I see is that people are asking to PERSONALLY murder the ex-queen in the middle of the landsmeet, where her crimes (in the eyes of the landsmeet in any case) are virtually none.
I do not think it was poorly written at all. It makes a lot of sense that you cannot be her personal executor, and later on in the epilogue nothing is mentioned of her, maybe people want closure on that but that is a minor point.

Ahh, my character would have killed her at the Landsmeet at the same time as she killed Anora's Father ... part of the same Regime and all of that. She implicity stated that she was not held prisoner by her Father, nor cororeced into doing things ... so that makes her an accomplice to her Father's actions. The Landsmeet would have supported you just as the Dwarven Senate (or whatever it was called) supported Bhelin when he had Harrow killed on the spot ...

I feel it was very poor writing to even leave such an option out., but again that does not mean I dislike the whole of the story or think the Writers are worse then dirt ... There are many great writers from Tolkien to Turtledove who write things I dislike ... after all,I am just a reader/gamer.

[ReubenLiew]

Akka le Vil wrote...

ReubenLiew wrote...

Well actually it seems like a lot of people seem to deny that she has no reason to do what she did, and I called them out on it.

From what I read, it's not really "no reason", it's rather "no morally justifiable reasons". Anora doesn't look like a nutcase, and all her decisions seem very calculated.
The point being, her calculations are all about selfishness and her personnal benefit (at least, that's how they ended up looking in the game), so players find her repulsive and want to kill her. Nothing unreasonable in this. As she's a rather important character, and wanting to kill is a rather common roleplaying idea, I think that the option to kill her should have been implemented - at the very least, the attempt.
Same principle as for the desire to chop the head of Morrigan near the ending : if something is very likely to be chosen by a sizable portion of the playerbase, it should be a possible choice. It's the reason we have several dialogue option each time, right ? To be able to make different choice according to what kind of character we want to play ?

Certainly, they just can't fit EVERY possible point of view and answer imaginable - it would be inifinte, and require ungodly amount of work for some very weird approach of the game. But the "main" ways should be generally available (and they ARE generally available in the rest of the game), that's what a RPG is about after all. And killing Anora, especially considering how despicable she is and how you can often ends up opposing her, can be reasonably considered one of the "main" ways.

I don't know, I've read a few posts that are close to 'no reason' than 'no morally justifiable reasons', but you might be right, although I disagree that she doesn't do it out of her own morals, which may be very defined in this case as wishing to put a strong monarch to the throne, and that means not her father, and most definitely not someone who's far too naive for her, or a bastard who's... well shall we say a little too soft. It may be seen as selfish because this person just happens to be her, we can't say.

Actually what I'm still arguing is that people CAN go this path, I mean. If you put Alistair on the throne, she gets put in a tower. Maybe for life. But people want to be her personal executor, which would fly in the face of logic when you think about it. I mean, the landsmeet can understand putting her in the tower so she can't threaten Alistairs rule, but I highly doubt they would tolerate you murdering her in cold blood at the landsmeet, as they respect far too much to have her die like a common criminal, like Loghain.

[ReubenLiew]

Akka le Vil wrote...

ReubenLiew wrote...

Well actually it seems like a lot of people seem to deny that she has no reason to do what she did, and I called them out on it.

From what I read, it's not really "no reason", it's rather "no morally justifiable reasons". Anora doesn't look like a nutcase, and all her decisions seem very calculated.
The point being, her calculations are all about selfishness and her personnal benefit (at least, that's how they ended up looking in the game), so players find her repulsive and want to kill her. Nothing unreasonable in this. As she's a rather important character, and wanting to kill is a rather common roleplaying idea, I think that the option to kill her should have been implemented - at the very least, the attempt.
Same principle as for the desire to chop the head of Morrigan near the ending : if something is very likely to be chosen by a sizable portion of the playerbase, it should be a possible choice. It's the reason we have several dialogue option each time, right ? To be able to make different choice according to what kind of character we want to play ?

Certainly, they just can't fit EVERY possible point of view and answer imaginable - it would be inifinte, and require ungodly amount of work for some very weird approach of the game. But the "main" ways should be generally available (and they ARE generally available in the rest of the game), that's what a RPG is about after all. And killing Anora, especially considering how despicable she is and how you can often ends up opposing her, can be reasonably considered one of the "main" ways.

I don't know, I've read a few posts that are close to 'no reason' than 'no morally justifiable reasons', but you might be right, although I disagree that she doesn't do it out of her own morals, which may be very defined in this case as wishing to put a strong monarch to the throne, and that means not her father, and most definitely not someone who's far too naive for her, or a bastard who's... well shall we say a little too soft. It may be seen as selfish because this person just happens to be her, we can't say.

Actually what I'm still arguing is that people CAN go this path, I mean. If you put Alistair on the throne, she gets put in a tower. Maybe for life. But people want to be her personal executor, which would fly in the face of logic when you think about it. I mean, the landsmeet can understand putting her in the tower so she can't threaten Alistairs rule, but I highly doubt they would tolerate you murdering her in cold blood at the landsmeet, as they respect far too much to have her die like a common criminal, like Loghain.

[SeanMurphy2]

I don't see peoples problems with her.



She is the corronated Queen. I never understood the logic that she should stand down because her husband died. Also I thought it would be difficult to prove Alistair's parentage without DNA. And it was risky in a crisis to give the crown to someone completely unknown and unproven.



I did not begrudge her fighting to keep her position. Earlier she should have fought harder against Loghain taking control or being imprisoned by Howe. She has a weak position so has to be calculating. She got taken prisoner by Howe and has no army of her own.

[Akka le Vil]

ReubenLiew wrote...

No, I don't think having her killed AFTER you put Alistair on the throne would've affect the storyline, and this happens exactly. You put her in a tower, and leave her to rot.
What I argue is that some people want to cut her down where she stands. Before the landsmeet even! I mean, can you imagine the sheer disaster that situation would be?

Well, she has no problem ordering the execution of Alistair before the Landsmeet. Though honestly, the whole "let's take whatever decision we want and the Landsmeet will agree" felt quite weak. I would have prefered something more subtle happening once you've decided who is the ruler. Anora asking to see you after her coronation and saying "I need Alistair to have some kind of accident" or Eamon telling you "Anora continues to claim her place on the throne and threaten Alistair's position, we need to do something about that".

You could also cut her down after her first betrayal, and put the blame on Howe - chances of backfiring of course, and costing you one or two voices, but after all if Loghain can get away with killing his King and letting half the army die and pretending it was a retreat because he had no choice, you can get away with killing the Queen by pretending it was someone else, can't you ?

In the storyline you can make alistair king, and leave her out of the equation, and lock her away or be assassinated quietly after everything's died down, so yes you have the choice.
What I don't understad is why nobody seems to take this as a choice. What I see is that people are asking to PERSONALLY murder the ex-queen in the middle of the landsmeet, where her crimes (in the eyes of the landsmeet in any case) are virtually none.
I do not think it was poorly written at all. It makes a lot of sense that you cannot be her personal executor, and later on in the epilogue nothing is mentioned of her, maybe people want closure on that but that is a minor point.

The problem is that if Alistair die killing the Archdemon, she's brang
back from the tower and made Queen as if nothing had happened. As such, the choice made before is unmade.

And the tower is felt as overly gentle for her
(and Loghain get away too gently too, by the way, a clean stab is really too nice when you think about his crimes)

[Akka le Vil]

SeanMurphy2 wrote...

I don't see peoples problems with her.

She is the corronated Queen. I never understood the logic that she should stand down because her husband died.

Consort Queen vs reigning Queen. It has already been discuted. And she's a b*tch, which kinda trumps any kind of legitimacy in the eye of many players

[ReubenLiew]

Taerda wrote...

ReubenLiew wrote...

No, I don't think having her killed AFTER you put Alistair on the throne would've affect the storyline, and this happens exactly. You put her in a tower, and leave her to rot.
What I argue is that some people want to cut her down where she stands. Before the landsmeet even! I mean, can you imagine the sheer disaster that situation would be? In the storyline you can make alistair king, and leave her out of the equation, and lock her away or be assassinated quietly after everything's died down, so yes you have the choice.
What I don't understad is why nobody seems to take this as a choice. What I see is that people are asking to PERSONALLY murder the ex-queen in the middle of the landsmeet, where her crimes (in the eyes of the landsmeet in any case) are virtually none.
I do not think it was poorly written at all. It makes a lot of sense that you cannot be her personal executor, and later on in the epilogue nothing is mentioned of her, maybe people want closure on that but that is a minor point.

Ahh, my character would have killed her at the Landsmeet at the same time as she killed Anora's Father ... part of the same Regime and all of that. She implicity stated that she was not held prisoner by her Father, nor cororeced into doing things ... so that makes her an accomplice to her Father's actions. The Landsmeet would have supported you just as the Dwarven Senate (or whatever it was called) supported Bhelin when he had Harrow killed on the spot ...

I feel it was very poor writing to even leave such an option out., but again that does not mean I dislike the whole of the story or think the Writers are worse then dirt ... There are many great writers from Tolkien to Turtledove who write things I dislike ... after all,I am just a reader/gamer.

But you have to think about it for a minute. YOU know she cheated you on the bit about being kidnapped and such, but as far as the landsmeet knows, she was not implicit in her father's madness, because they know her asw being very level-headed and calm leader of men. You could kill her immediately and then tell the others that she was a witch, I guess, but then you'd have no proof.

Unlike Loghain, you have plenty of proof to turn others to your cause, but if you murdered her in court, you'd be faced with open rebellion, because you do not have proof that she was implicit with her father, or that she was as guilty as her father, and to state that she allowed this to happen, well all the Banns here 'allowed' Loghain to do what he did because none of them had the power to fight him, what else is there to be said about one queen, who is his daughter no less.

And if you killed her anyway, won't this just reinforfce the idea that maybe the Grey Wardens DID kill the King after all? You never did put forth any prood you didn't, simply proof that Loghain was crazy and therefore MAYBE wrong about the Grey Wardens and all.

I'm just saying that emotional hatred aside, I think not being able to murder her where she stand was a very logical conclusion to the event.

[Taerda]

Akka le Vil wrote...
The problem is that if Alistair die killing the Archdemon, she's brang
back from the tower and made Queen as if nothing had happened. As such, the choice made before is unmade.

And the tower is felt as overly gentle for her
(and Loghain get away too gently too, by the way, a clean stab is really too nice when you think about his crimes)

This is indeed the thing that was the "straw that broke the camal's back" .. a disposesed queen becomes the defacto Monarch without even a second Landsmeet being called ... way too determanistic.

[Damsel of Distress]

SeanMurphy2 wrote...

I did not begrudge her fighting to keep her position. Earlier she should have fought harder against Loghain taking control or being imprisoned by Howe. She has a weak position so has to be calculating. She got taken prisoner by Howe and has no army of her own.

This is my main problem with her. Half the Bannorn is already up in arms against Loghain. Surely she, the apparently beloved and respected Queen, could have stole away in the night and started denouncing him as loud as she could. 

But she doesn't. If you listen to the rumors she fully supporting him every single step of the way. 

[ReubenLiew]

Akka le Vil wrote...

ReubenLiew wrote...

No, I don't think having her killed AFTER you put Alistair on the throne would've affect the storyline, and this happens exactly. You put her in a tower, and leave her to rot.
What I argue is that some people want to cut her down where she stands. Before the landsmeet even! I mean, can you imagine the sheer disaster that situation would be?

Well, she has no problem ordering the execution of Alistair before the Landsmeet. Though honestly, the whole "let's take whatever decision we want and the Landsmeet will agree" felt quite weak. I would have prefered something more subtle happening once you've decided who is the ruler. Anora asking to see you after her coronation and saying "I need Alistair to have some kind of accident" or Eamon telling you "Anora continues to claim her place on the throne and threaten Alistair's position, we need to do something about that".

You could also cut her down after her first betrayal, and put the blame on Howe - chances of backfiring of course, and costing you one or two voices, but after all if Loghain can get away with killing his King and letting half the army die and pretending it was a retreat because he had no choice, you can get away with killing the Queen by pretending it was someone else, can't you ?

In the storyline you can make alistair king, and leave her out of the equation, and lock her away or be assassinated quietly after everything's died down, so yes you have the choice.
What I don't understad is why nobody seems to take this as a choice. What I see is that people are asking to PERSONALLY murder the ex-queen in the middle of the landsmeet, where her crimes (in the eyes of the landsmeet in any case) are virtually none.
I do not think it was poorly written at all. It makes a lot of sense that you cannot be her personal executor, and later on in the epilogue nothing is mentioned of her, maybe people want closure on that but that is a minor point.

The problem is that if Alistair die killing the Archdemon, she's brang
back from the tower and made Queen as if nothing had happened. As such, the choice made before is unmade.

And the tower is felt as overly gentle for her
(and Loghain get away too gently too, by the way, a clean stab is really too nice when you think about his crimes)

She never did ask Alistair to be killed before the landsmeet, she does after Alistair goes mad and declares that he wants to be king in order to kill loghain. For all her calm demenour I took it at that point she loses her calm a bit and wants him dead before he goes and do something stupid like lead a revolt against her father.
And killing her then would be... disastrous. For one, the only way you meet her is AFTER Howe was dead, and then immediately after that you fight Ser Cauthrien. I'm sure anybody could put 1 and 1 together and piece together who murdered the Queen, which would bring so much more complication to the matter. Plus it's much easier to put the blame on an organization that's already an outlaw than a dead Arl.
And the part about saying it's poor written wasn't directed at you, sorry.

[Taerda]

ReubenLiew wrote... But you have to think about it for a minute. YOU know she cheated you on the bit about being kidnapped and such, but as far as the landsmeet knows, she was not implicit in her father's madness, because they know her asw being very level-headed and calm leader of men. You could kill her immediately and then tell the others that she was a witch, I guess, but then you'd have no proof.

Your play through might have been different then mine, but in mine, she refutes the idea of being held against her will or being manipulated by her Father in the same dialougue leading up to the final fight to the death that you engage Loghain in. That by itself was proof enough to go through with the execution ... by her own admitionshe was complicit and willing member of her Father's Regime.

[SeanMurphy2]

Damsel of Distress wrote...

This is my main problem with her. Half the Bannorn is already up in arms against Loghain. Surely she, the apparently beloved and respected Queen, could have stole away in the night and started denouncing him as loud as she could. 

But she doesn't. If you listen to the rumors she fully supporting him every single step of the way. 

Maybe she learnt from the experience. And felt she needed to be more assertive and ruthless in gaining control.

Initially there may be sentiment in acquiescing to her father. She may have trusted him and thought she could guide his actions. She may not have had much of a powerbase. So was too polite in dealing with Howe who walked all over her.

Also she was married to Cailan. So she may be used to handling him a certain way using subtle polite suggestions. It would be different dealing with Loghain or Howe.

Modifié par SeanMurphy2, 22 novembre 2009 - 07:20 .

[deltaxsi]

ReubenLiew wrote...

What I don't understad is why nobody seems to take this as a choice. What I see is that people are asking to PERSONALLY murder the ex-queen in the middle of the landsmeet, where her crimes (in the eyes of the landsmeet in any case) are virtually none.
I do not think it was poorly written at all. It makes a lot of sense that you cannot be her personal executor, and later on in the epilogue nothing is mentioned of her, maybe people want closure on that but that is a minor point.

Umm, kinda like she calls for Alistair's execution at the exact same landsmeet?

That said, while I totally disagree with nearly all of your arguments, I have to tip my hat to how well you've presented your case.  You've mostly kept your head, and communicated your thoughts intelligently.  Well done.

The one point of yours that I DO agree with is that Anora wasn't a poorly written character.  I still think she was just at evil, deluded, and in it for herself and not her country as her father, but well written.

Modifié par deltaxsi, 22 novembre 2009 - 07:16 .

[ReubenLiew]

Taerda wrote...

ReubenLiew wrote... But you have to think about it for a minute. YOU know she cheated you on the bit about being kidnapped and such, but as far as the landsmeet knows, she was not implicit in her father's madness, because they know her asw being very level-headed and calm leader of men. You could kill her immediately and then tell the others that she was a witch, I guess, but then you'd have no proof.

Your play through might have been different then mine, but in mine, she refutes the idea of being held against her will or being manipulated by her Father in the same dialougue leading up to the final fight to the death that you engage Loghain in. That by itself was proof enough to go through with the execution ... by her own admitionshe was complicit and willing member of her Father's Regime.

Urm... not being held against her will and not being manipulated by her father isn's really a crime, you see. She didn't order the elves to be enslaved, nor did she order Cailan to be killed. I think many of the Bannorn already suspects that she was deposed by her own father by then.

If that is to be the case at least fully half of the Bannorn will be executed for siding with Loghain during their Civil War. I doubt they'd call for her execution if it meant that it would call for their own execution as well. Plus I think a lot of them don't blame Anora for not being to stop her father, I mean half the Bannorn sure couldn't how could she?

[The Angry One]

ReubenLiew wrote...

Urm... not being held against her will and not being manipulated by her father isn's really a crime, you see. She didn't order the elves to be enslaved, nor did she order Cailan to be killed. I think many of the Bannorn already suspects that she was deposed by her own father by then.

If that is to be the case at least fully half of the Bannorn will be executed for siding with Loghain during their Civil War. I doubt they'd call for her execution if it meant that it would call for their own execution as well. Plus I think a lot of them don't blame Anora for not being to stop her father, I mean half the Bannorn sure couldn't how could she?

How could she? SHE'S THE QUEEN, THAT'S HOW.
According to the codex, she held the true power while Cailan went off playing warrior likes the swords. So she has no excuse. She let her father install himself as regent and start a civil war. Again, she either didn't want to stop him or couldn't. Either makes her a joke of a Queen. The first time in her reign when she was called upon to make a decision for the good of Ferelden, and she FAILED.

[Taerda]

ReubenLiew wrote...

Urm... not being held against her will and not being manipulated by her father isn's really a crime, you see. She didn't order the elves to be enslaved, nor did she order Cailan to be killed. I think many of the Bannorn already suspects that she was deposed by her own father by then.

If that is to be the case at least fully half of the Bannorn will be executed for siding with Loghain during their Civil War. I doubt they'd call for her execution if it meant that it would call for their own execution as well. Plus I think a lot of them don't blame Anora for not being to stop her father, I mean half the Bannorn sure couldn't how could she?

The difference is that she has a claim to the throne and the half of the landsmeet that sided with Loghain do not. Again, the scene with Behlin and Harrowmeet(sp) is quite analogous because the person with the claim is the one who suffers the consequences ...

Power politics being what it is, those Bannorn would have stood down at that point, just as they did when a "truce" was called in the first place.

[ReubenLiew]

deltaxsi wrote...

ReubenLiew wrote...

What I don't understad is why nobody seems to take this as a choice. What I see is that people are asking to PERSONALLY murder the ex-queen in the middle of the landsmeet, where her crimes (in the eyes of the landsmeet in any case) are virtually none.
I do not think it was poorly written at all. It makes a lot of sense that you cannot be her personal executor, and later on in the epilogue nothing is mentioned of her, maybe people want closure on that but that is a minor point.

Umm, kinda like she calls for Alistair's execution at the exact same landsmeet?

That said, while I totally disagree with nearly all of your arguments, I have to tip my hat to how well you've presented your case.  You've mostly kept your head, and communicated your thoughts intelligently.  Well done.

The one point of yours that I DO agree with is that Anora wasn't a poorly written character.  I still think she was just at evil, deluded, and in it for herself and not her country as her father, but well written.

Isn't there a specific situation that leads to her calling for his execution? I think the only way to get that is to let loghain live, then have Alistair put on a ruckus and declare himself king to put forward his execution, and then choose anora to be queen, in which he declares he will leave, but she wants him to be executed because if he left then he could still incite a revolution in the name of the last of the Theirin bloodline? I don't think she wants him to die willy-nilly, it has to be very specific, so she only calls for something as drastic as his execution when he becomes a very real threat to the throne.

And thank you I did lose a bit of my temper earlier though, but thanks all the same.

[SeanMurphy2]

Taerda wrote...

Your play through might have been different then mine, but in mine, she refutes the idea of being held against her will or being manipulated by her Father in the same dialougue leading up to the final fight to the death that you engage Loghain in. That by itself was proof enough to go through with the execution ... by her own admitionshe was complicit and willing member of her Father's Regime.

She is forced to pick a side. She can't be half hearted about it. 

If she sides with her father, then she is not going to say bad things about him.

It is a risk for her to side with you. There has to be some benefit for her. And presumably she needs to believe you are strong enough to win. Otherwise she will face repercussions if she ends up on the losing side. And she would have openly opposed Loghain which means she could be killed.