I didn't want to give away the name of the guy that you have to duel in the Landsmeet. How practical is it to turn into a flying swarm and just keep circling him? Can he be overwhelmed as a bear or spider? Just curious.
Has anyone won the duel with "possible secret companion" as a shapeshifter mage?
Débuté par
Sir Pounce-a-lot
, juin 06 2011 09:14
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 07 juin 2011 - 09:08
Marvin_Arnold
-
- Members
- 1 121 messages
I think "possible secret companion" is actually more of a spoiler than a "boss fight" with the main antagonist in the game...
#3
Posté 07 juin 2011 - 04:01
d3c0yBoY
-
- Members
- 161 messages
Thats funnyMarvin_Arnold wrote...
I think "possible secret companion" is actually more of a spoiler than a "boss fight" with the main antagonist in the game...
#4
Posté 09 juin 2011 - 08:08
Sir Pounce-a-lot
-
- Members
- 323 messages
LOL. 
Actually, I wonder why you even have to duel Loghain. Why have everyone vote when the whole thing is decided by who wins a duel? The duel should only happen if it's a tie.
My shapeshifter is inflicting very little damage on most opponents, so I was just wondering how easy it would be to just go into flying swarm form and just circle him until he dies. It's tough to have that kind of manoeverability.
Actually, I wonder why you even have to duel Loghain. Why have everyone vote when the whole thing is decided by who wins a duel? The duel should only happen if it's a tie.My shapeshifter is inflicting very little damage on most opponents, so I was just wondering how easy it would be to just go into flying swarm form and just circle him until he dies. It's tough to have that kind of manoeverability.
#5
Posté 09 juin 2011 - 04:54
Marvin_Arnold
-
- Members
- 1 121 messages
Because you areSir Pounce-a-lot wrote...
LOL.
Seriously: (a) because Loghain is the Regent of Ferelden and you are a backwater nobody Grey Warden rookie. Winning against Loghain makes a stronger and spectacular point than any vote by a handful of limp-wristed aristocrats. (Note it's YOU who suggests the duel.) (
to stop Loghain from going on protesting and scheming behind your back while you are busy trying to defeat the Blight. It is also apparent from his behavior that he would not accept the Landsmeet vote. (Note again it's YOU suggesting the duel) In medieval society (and later - duel pistols were deliberately made inaccurate for the same reason), a duel is seen as a divine judgement and its outcome puts any question to an end.
Modifié par Marvin_Arnold, 09 juin 2011 - 05:02 .
#6
Posté 10 juin 2011 - 07:48
Sir Pounce-a-lot
-
- Members
- 323 messages
Marvin_Arnold wrote...
Because you areSir Pounce-a-lot wrote...
LOL.Chuck NorrisThe Warden™ and have to solve EVERY single problem by yourself!
Seriously: (a) because Loghain is the Regent of Ferelden and you are a backwater nobody Grey Warden rookie. Winning against Loghain makes a stronger and spectacular point than any vote by a handful of limp-wristed aristocrats. (Note it's YOU who suggests the duel.) (
In medieval society (and later - duel pistols were deliberately made inaccurate for the same reason), a duel is seen as a divine judgement and its outcome puts any question to an end.
Your Chuck Norris comment was cool.
I always wondered how you can get a dozen sword gashes and just heal up withing seconds after a battle. Actually, Anora was in charge, not Loghain. Her word trumps his. Once she was freed, she could have settled the whole thing herself and just declared the outcome before the Landsmeet even started. Even in Medieval society, you couldn't just duel someone and expect that to have legally binding consequences. Only very primitive societies like the Vikings made their decisions based on duels. Medieval Europe may have been low-tech, but their social structure was more advanced than that of ancient Europe (pre-Roman). Plus, the Dragon Age world seemed more Renaissance-ish than Medieval-ish.
#7
Posté 10 juin 2011 - 09:43
Marvin_Arnold
-
- Members
- 1 121 messages
Feel free to make up your own explanation why the Warden suggests the duel, then, Mr Know-it-all.
I suggest listening to the Landsmeet dialogues again. You seem to have missed them.
And look up "Renaissance" while you're at it.
I suggest listening to the Landsmeet dialogues again. You seem to have missed them.
And look up "Renaissance" while you're at it.
Modifié par Marvin_Arnold, 10 juin 2011 - 09:44 .
#8
Posté 14 juin 2011 - 08:04
Sir Pounce-a-lot
-
- Members
- 323 messages
Marvin_Arnold wrote...
Feel free to make up your own explanation why the Warden suggests the duel, then, Mr Know-it-all.
I suggest listening to the Landsmeet dialogues again. You seem to have missed them.
And look up "Renaissance" while you're at it.
Lol. Relax. I know that the Warden suggests the duel, and the dialogue options give you no choices other than either a duel or a brawl. My point was that a duel should only occur if it was a tie. I know what the Renaissance was in the real world. Why should I look it up?
I'm not a know it all. I was wrong once (I think).
#9
Posté 17 juin 2011 - 05:04
MagiST
-
- Members
- 46 messages
I've seen that duel won with cone of cold, winter's grasp, and a staff. And maybe another crowd control and damage spell. But the concept is similar to your swarm idea, just keep moving.
#10
Posté 17 juin 2011 - 01:17
MysteryNotes
-
- Members
- 109 messages
Marvin_Arnold wrote...
In medieval society (and later - duel pistols were deliberately made inaccurate for the same reason), a duel is seen as a divine judgement and its outcome puts any question to an end.
Made inaccurate? Are you sure?
Did a google search and found this "purpose-built duelling pistols featured various improvements to make them more reliable and accurate" on wiki.
Am curious about this - Where did you hear that duelling pistols were purposely made inaccurate?
#11
Posté 17 juin 2011 - 02:26
Arthur Cousland
-
- Members
- 3 239 messages
A mage could win the fight easily with glyph of repulsion, as well as the cold spells. I did that once and didn't lose one hp during the fight. Too bad Loghain wasn't a templar.
This fight isn't too tough. If you can keep Loghain from doing damage to your character, while doing damage yourself, you'll eventually wear him down.
This fight isn't too tough. If you can keep Loghain from doing damage to your character, while doing damage yourself, you'll eventually wear him down.
Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 17 juin 2011 - 02:28 .
#12
Posté 17 juin 2011 - 08:41
TBastian
-
- Members
- 447 messages
Seriously, how can a Shapeshifter NOT win the fight against him? By the time you reach the Landsmeet you should be around 16 or higher. If your Shapeshifter is not wiping out entire enemy groups all by himself at that point then you're either playing him wrong, or you should really start using all that extra cash you've accumulated to buy yourself some end-game gear.
You can Overwhelm him, but why bother? Save the intricate shift/skills->unshift/cast->shift /skills for difficult bosses the likes of Cauthrien and Branka, Unless you're having an underdeveloped Morrigan fight for you then just blast him with fireball and the three cone spells repeatedly and be done with it. If your Shapeshifter is heavy on Entropy CC's (a poor choice of spells for a Shapeshifter) then all you really need is an awful lot of healing poultices.
You can Overwhelm him, but why bother? Save the intricate shift/skills->unshift/cast->shift /skills for difficult bosses the likes of Cauthrien and Branka, Unless you're having an underdeveloped Morrigan fight for you then just blast him with fireball and the three cone spells repeatedly and be done with it. If your Shapeshifter is heavy on Entropy CC's (a poor choice of spells for a Shapeshifter) then all you really need is an awful lot of healing poultices.
Modifié par TBastian, 17 juin 2011 - 08:48 .
#13
Posté 18 juin 2011 - 12:13
Sir Pounce-a-lot
-
- Members
- 323 messages
I won that duel a while back. BTW, duels in the past were done in defense of their "honor". A duel never determined innocence or guilt in criminal matters, and a duel would never be the determining factor for who will rule a nation. Otherwise, some inbred moron could become the ruler of a nation simply because he could swing a sharp piece of metal better than the well-trained, well-educated person sitting on the throne. Once Loghain's crimes were revealed, be would be drawn and quartered (dismembered). No quick beheading, and they certainly would not have given him the chance to "redeem" himself by joining some elite military order.
Modifié par Sir Pounce-a-lot, 18 juin 2011 - 12:17 .
#14
Posté 18 juin 2011 - 12:33
Arthur Cousland
-
- Members
- 3 239 messages
Too bad there's no dismembering option for this fight. All you get to see is Anora covered in Loghain's blood and his corpse on the floor. Perhaps they could have made weapons or a suit of armor from Loghain's bones and his blood used as war paint, while the rest of him left as mabari food.
#15
Posté 19 juin 2011 - 12:32
Sir Pounce-a-lot
-
- Members
- 323 messages
Arthur Cousland wrote...
Too bad there's no dismembering option for this fight. All you get to see is Anora covered in Loghain's blood and his corpse on the floor. Perhaps they could have made weapons or a suit of armor from Loghain's bones and his blood used as war paint, while the rest of him left as mabari food.
Turning Loghain into Mabari chow. I like it!
Like Alistair said - It's not cannibalism if he's eating it.
#16
Posté 19 juin 2011 - 12:00
Arthur Cousland
-
- Members
- 3 239 messages
Too bad the mabari doesn't get to duel Loghain. His execution method could have been quite gruesome.
#17
Posté 19 juin 2011 - 07:27
maxernst
-
- Members
- 2 196 messages
I'll just quote wikipedia (granted, not the most reliable source, but I can certainly verify that trial-by-combat was very much alive in William Rufus time from a biography I read):
Wager of battle, as the trial by combat was called in English, appears to have been introduced into the common law of the Kingdom of England following the Norman conquest and remained in use for the duration of the High and Late Middle Ages.[1] The last certain trial by battle in England occurred in 1446: a servant accused his master of treason, and the master drank too much wine before the battle and was slain by the servant.[2] In Scotland and Ireland, the practice was continued into the 16th century
also:
"The earliest case in which wager of battle is recorded was Wulfstan v. Walter (1077), eleven years after the Conquest. Significantly, the names of the parties suggest that it was a dispute between a Saxon and a Norman. The Tractatus of Glanvill, from around 1187, appears to have considered it the chief mode of trial, at least among aristocrats entitled to bear arms."
So, no trial-by-combat, was not restricted to very primitive societies. Ferelden strikes me as solidly medieval. If you go by technology, probably 13th century, when the Arabs had cannons but the Europeans did not. In other respects, if anything, it's political structures remind me more of the earlier medieval period than high feudalism.
Medieval justice was totally different than modern law. I was doing some research on Lombard Italy for an RPG I was running, and what's striking to the modern eye, is that the state was typically only involved in disputes of property. Violent crime was often handled by confrontation and compensation between kin groups. But before dismissing this as indicating that the society is simply primitive, listen to this:
"In 762, Alpert of Pisa and his sister-in-law Rodtruda (with Tasso her legal representative) came to the royal court at Pavia. Tasso claimed that Alpert was illegally occupying the land of his dead brother Auripert who had willed it to the church. Alpert in response produced his charter, in which he and Auripert agreed to institute each other as heirs if either died childless as Auripert had. Tasso replied by stating first, that the charter was only a copy and so legally invalid; second, that it did not conform to the types of gift legitimated in the Liutprand's seventy-third law; thirdly, he produced another charter (also a copy), by which Auripert willed his land to the Church, thus voiding the first one. Alpert asked, in apparently verbatim surprise: 'But Tasso, if my copy is not legally valid, how come yours is?' Tasso, in something of a coup de theatre, announced that his charter had been countersigned by King Aistulf, and was thus fully valid. Alpert lost."
-- From Early Medieval Italy Central Power and Local Society 400-1000, Chris Wickham
It seems strange to us that practices like feud between families and trial-by-combat would coexist with that much legal sophistication, but they did.
I will grant that leadership of a nation was never decided by a duel to my knowledge, but guilt or innocence in criminal cases, certainly was. Societies with more tribal organization sometimes do use combat to challenge for leadership, however, and Ferelden is described as being relatively "barbaric", at least from the perspective of the Orlesians.
Wager of battle, as the trial by combat was called in English, appears to have been introduced into the common law of the Kingdom of England following the Norman conquest and remained in use for the duration of the High and Late Middle Ages.[1] The last certain trial by battle in England occurred in 1446: a servant accused his master of treason, and the master drank too much wine before the battle and was slain by the servant.[2] In Scotland and Ireland, the practice was continued into the 16th century
also:
"The earliest case in which wager of battle is recorded was Wulfstan v. Walter (1077), eleven years after the Conquest. Significantly, the names of the parties suggest that it was a dispute between a Saxon and a Norman. The Tractatus of Glanvill, from around 1187, appears to have considered it the chief mode of trial, at least among aristocrats entitled to bear arms."
So, no trial-by-combat, was not restricted to very primitive societies. Ferelden strikes me as solidly medieval. If you go by technology, probably 13th century, when the Arabs had cannons but the Europeans did not. In other respects, if anything, it's political structures remind me more of the earlier medieval period than high feudalism.
Medieval justice was totally different than modern law. I was doing some research on Lombard Italy for an RPG I was running, and what's striking to the modern eye, is that the state was typically only involved in disputes of property. Violent crime was often handled by confrontation and compensation between kin groups. But before dismissing this as indicating that the society is simply primitive, listen to this:
"In 762, Alpert of Pisa and his sister-in-law Rodtruda (with Tasso her legal representative) came to the royal court at Pavia. Tasso claimed that Alpert was illegally occupying the land of his dead brother Auripert who had willed it to the church. Alpert in response produced his charter, in which he and Auripert agreed to institute each other as heirs if either died childless as Auripert had. Tasso replied by stating first, that the charter was only a copy and so legally invalid; second, that it did not conform to the types of gift legitimated in the Liutprand's seventy-third law; thirdly, he produced another charter (also a copy), by which Auripert willed his land to the Church, thus voiding the first one. Alpert asked, in apparently verbatim surprise: 'But Tasso, if my copy is not legally valid, how come yours is?' Tasso, in something of a coup de theatre, announced that his charter had been countersigned by King Aistulf, and was thus fully valid. Alpert lost."
-- From Early Medieval Italy Central Power and Local Society 400-1000, Chris Wickham
It seems strange to us that practices like feud between families and trial-by-combat would coexist with that much legal sophistication, but they did.
I will grant that leadership of a nation was never decided by a duel to my knowledge, but guilt or innocence in criminal cases, certainly was. Societies with more tribal organization sometimes do use combat to challenge for leadership, however, and Ferelden is described as being relatively "barbaric", at least from the perspective of the Orlesians.
Modifié par maxernst, 19 juin 2011 - 07:38 .
#18
Posté 21 juin 2011 - 07:30
Sir Pounce-a-lot
-
- Members
- 323 messages
In reference to the post above:
The entries in Wikipedia for “duel” and “trial by combat” explained that they are different. A duel was not used to determine guilt or innocence, and had no legal authority. Trial by combat, on the other hand, could be used to determine guilt or innocence in the absence of witnesses. In Dragon Age, there were plenty of witnesses to what Loghain did at Ostagar. At any rate, Anora was Queen, and once she was freed, she could have declared Loghain guilty and stripped him of any authority that he had. After all, he was supposedly her regent, and she could easily revoke that.
The entries in Wikipedia for “duel” and “trial by combat” explained that they are different. A duel was not used to determine guilt or innocence, and had no legal authority. Trial by combat, on the other hand, could be used to determine guilt or innocence in the absence of witnesses. In Dragon Age, there were plenty of witnesses to what Loghain did at Ostagar. At any rate, Anora was Queen, and once she was freed, she could have declared Loghain guilty and stripped him of any authority that he had. After all, he was supposedly her regent, and she could easily revoke that.
#19
Posté 22 juin 2011 - 09:24
Haradmir
-
- Members
- 65 messages
"What he did at Ostagar" is not really the issue- I wouldn't consider it an issue at all. Loghain would have been a fool not to retreat at Ostagar, but that's a different discussion. The poisoning of Arl Eamon, for whatever reason, allowing elves to be sold to Tevinter slavers, and, among other things, hiring Zevran as an assasin are all greater things to call into question at the Landsmeet than his retreat.
#20
Posté 23 juin 2011 - 07:16
TheBigMatt90
-
- Members
- 401 messages
So betraying the king and letting him die isn't a big deal? I agree he would've been a fool but I think pretty much killing the king and ALL of the grey warden's (if he had it his way) isn't a big deal? He should've said "you dont have support, i wont join you in battle, call me a traitor if you would, blah blah blah" not let him die. The other things are massive deal's, but allowing the king's death is the worst thing anyone can do (in that time period)
#21
Posté 24 juin 2011 - 04:59
Haradmir
-
- Members
- 65 messages
He was willing to go through with it, until the PC couldn't light the signal on top of the Tower of Ishal in time, thereby ruining their plans. Cailan was already dead by the time the signal was lit, so it isn't like Loghain could have sent over a messenger to Cailan to go re-work their strategy on the fly.
I don't get the impression that Loghain trusted the Wardens much, or even understood the necessity/importance of their existence at that time. If he wasn't comfortable with them in the first place and had little knowledge of their importance, and then sees them supporting Cailan's ill-conceived battle plan, I can see very well why he wouldn't be concerned over the disappearance of their order. He may have thought, (this is just conjecture on my part), that the Wardens may have influenced Cailan into thinking that his confrontation with the darkspawn horde was a good idea, and since this ultimately led to his death, the Wardens were therefore traitors.
I don't get the impression that Loghain trusted the Wardens much, or even understood the necessity/importance of their existence at that time. If he wasn't comfortable with them in the first place and had little knowledge of their importance, and then sees them supporting Cailan's ill-conceived battle plan, I can see very well why he wouldn't be concerned over the disappearance of their order. He may have thought, (this is just conjecture on my part), that the Wardens may have influenced Cailan into thinking that his confrontation with the darkspawn horde was a good idea, and since this ultimately led to his death, the Wardens were therefore traitors.
Modifié par Haradmir, 24 juin 2011 - 05:01 .
#22
Posté 24 juin 2011 - 02:40
Arthur Cousland
-
- Members
- 3 239 messages
I haven't read the books, but supposedly Loghain has reasons to not trust the wardens much, or at least be weary of them. He also doesn't know the real reason that they are needed to end blights.
Cailan and Duncan didn't die until after Loghain decided to pull out. The beacon was lit before then.
I'm assuming that when the beacon was finally lit, that Loghain decided that the battle was a lost cause and decided to flee, rather than join a battle that they couldn't win.
Cailan and Duncan didn't die until after Loghain decided to pull out. The beacon was lit before then.
I'm assuming that when the beacon was finally lit, that Loghain decided that the battle was a lost cause and decided to flee, rather than join a battle that they couldn't win.
#23
Posté 26 juin 2011 - 03:08
BlazingSpeed
-
- Members
- 371 messages
Haradmir wrote...
He was willing to go through with it, until the PC couldn't light the signal on top of the Tower of Ishal in time, thereby ruining their plans. Cailan was already dead by the time the signal was lit, so it isn't like Loghain could have sent over a messenger to Cailan to go re-work their strategy on the fly.
I don't get the impression that Loghain trusted the Wardens much, or even understood the necessity/importance of their existence at that time. If he wasn't comfortable with them in the first place and had little knowledge of their importance, and then sees them supporting Cailan's ill-conceived battle plan, I can see very well why he wouldn't be concerned over the disappearance of their order. He may have thought, (this is just conjecture on my part), that the Wardens may have influenced Cailan into thinking that his confrontation with the darkspawn horde was a good idea, and since this ultimately led to his death, the Wardens were therefore traitors.
Wasn't it Loghain's plan as in...
Cailan: Very well then speak your strategy we will attack the darkspawn and then?
Loghain: My troops and I will flank the darkspawn once the beacon is lit.
Cailan: And who shall light this beacon?
Loghain: I have a few men stationed there it's not a dangerous task but it is a crucial one....
Cailan: Then we should send our best have Alistair and the new grey warden go...
#24
Posté 27 juin 2011 - 08:40
Haradmir
-
- Members
- 65 messages
Your point being...?BlazingSpeed wrote...
Haradmir wrote...
He was willing to go through with it, until the PC couldn't light the signal on top of the Tower of Ishal in time, thereby ruining their plans. Cailan was already dead by the time the signal was lit, so it isn't like Loghain could have sent over a messenger to Cailan to go re-work their strategy on the fly.
I don't get the impression that Loghain trusted the Wardens much, or even understood the necessity/importance of their existence at that time. If he wasn't comfortable with them in the first place and had little knowledge of their importance, and then sees them supporting Cailan's ill-conceived battle plan, I can see very well why he wouldn't be concerned over the disappearance of their order. He may have thought, (this is just conjecture on my part), that the Wardens may have influenced Cailan into thinking that his confrontation with the darkspawn horde was a good idea, and since this ultimately led to his death, the Wardens were therefore traitors.
Wasn't it Loghain's plan as in...
Cailan: Very well then speak your strategy we will attack the darkspawn and then?
Loghain: My troops and I will flank the darkspawn once the beacon is lit.
Cailan: And who shall light this beacon?
Loghain: I have a few men stationed there it's not a dangerous task but it is a crucial one....
Cailan: Then we should send our best have Alistair and the new grey warden go...
#25
Posté 28 juin 2011 - 06:35
Sir Pounce-a-lot
-
- Members
- 323 messages
The guard mentioned "lower chambers" in the Tower of Ishal before the battle began, even though he never knew of any. I was under the impression that Loghain was "securing" the tower by digging that huge hole to let the Darkspawn up. The spawn were they're waiting for you (all set up with barricades, well thought out troop positions, traps, etc. They were they're for some time). He originally told Cailan that his own men would light the beacon so that it would never be lit - that way, he couldn't be seen as a traitor since he was technically following the battle plan. If people asked him about it, he could say "My men were instructed to light the beacon, but must have been killed before they could do so. I never knew when to charge." Of course, that didn't work, since the King sent you and Alistair to do it. At that point, Loghain was probably hoping that you'd both die, but to his dismay, you made it to the top and lit the beacon. Had you both died, he could have said "Alistair and the other Grey Warden were instructed to light the beacon, but must have been killed before they could do so. I never knew when to charge." He then had to move on to plan B - retreat, hope that everyone died at Ostagar so that they're wouldn't be any witnesses, and hunt down and kill any witnesses that may have survived. BTW, it's also obvious that he was conspiring with Howe to kill the Cousland family. Howe knew that he'd never be brought to justice because he and Loghain had planned to kill the King, the King's army, and the Grey Wardens before that could ever happen.
