481 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...
Caesar - the guy who circumvented legal proceedings to crucify the pirates who treated him like a king

He's overrated in my opinion.

Well, he only changed world history. Which can be felt to this day.

[Persephone]

Joy Divison wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...
Caesar - the guy who circumvented legal proceedings to crucify the pirates who treated him like a king

He's overrated in my opinion.

Dying before your time is always good publicity.  Caesar never had to solve the mess he created.  Augustus did.

What mess is that? And without Caesar, Augustus would not even be a footnote in history. (Doesn't make Augustus any less brilliant) The mess was actually created by the "liberators" and Mark Antony.

[Odin2040]

I think Eamon is the one that's crazy for power. Anora (and Loghain) was right! He wanted a puppet on the throne so he could manipulate him. I mean, he becomes the top advisor to Alistair! Knowing Alistair might die in battle, why would he want Anora to declare that she or her descendants will not make a claim to the throne? Because in that scenario, he would become king instead!

Just after I practically betrayed Anora's trust and made Alistair king, the two apparently had a talk. Then Alistair comes back and tells my female Dalish that he has to be king now and he has to marry someone that will give him a less-tainted child (words that I could swear came from Eamon's mouth). By the way, Alistair's personality wasn't "hardened" at all.

I think Anora should be queen, and she is in my main campaign. She's strong, intelligent and independant, kinda like Queen Elizabeth.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Persephone wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...
Caesar - the guy who circumvented legal proceedings to crucify the pirates who treated him like a king

He's overrated in my opinion.

Well, he only changed world history. Which can be felt to this day.

Augustus changed it more. And Caesar changing the nature of the Roman Empire to be "European" instead of Mediterranean (his invasion of Gaul), was arguably largely negative for the Empire in the long run (the Western part at least).

And without Sulla, Marius and Pompey, Caesar might have been nothing too. Not a pertinente argument. Not any 19 year old kid would be able to sieze an opportunity given to him and Octavian certainly recieved nothing on a silver platter. When Caesar's money was taken from him, he used his own. When he got into power, he discarded Caesar's image like any other political tool.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 28 octobre 2011 - 06:35 .

[Mike3207]

Eamon really is the threat-not Alistair. I don't think Anora would threaten to execute Alistair without Eamon in the background, but you know Eamon won't settle for Alistair not being on the throne. The writers won't let her kill Eamon, so she has to kill the puppet.

As for the death of Alistair ending the Theirin line-let it end. I'm not terribly impressed by either Cailan or Alistair. It's better to give it to the Mac Tir-Couslands. If Anora and the male Cousland don't have a heir, let them foster one from Fergus(assuming he has children).

[RagingCyclone]

Caesar's greatest contribution was his death. The resulting civil war changed Rome from a Republic to an Empire. As much as he was a great general he was a greater politician. He was able to convince the Senate to make him Dictator for Life instead of rewriting the laws regarding terms of office for consuls. The senate in creating the new office forced Caesar to chose both his official title and color. Before the Republic rulers were called King and their color was blue. Consuls wore red. Many senators hoped Caesar would be foolish enough to declare the title and color from before the Republic, but he was shrewd enough to see the trap and instead declared himself Emperor and chose purple for his color. Thus left with no clear option the Ides of March occurred. Augustus was the one who actually took power from the senate and changed Rome into an Empire...it took more that just a title and color.

[Wereparrot]

Bleachrude wrote...

As well, why the hell does Riordan not say or do anything when Alistair gets carted off to be executed? Hello, you just lost one warden there?

I suppose it's because Alistair has involved himself in politics, so if Riordan had stepped in it would've looked like he was supporting Alistair's claim, and therefore involving himself in politics aswell. So it's more complicated than merely losing a Warden; while he is losing a Warden, he sheds a man who could become a liability to the Warden ideal. That said, the Warden is also up to the neck in politics.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 28 octobre 2011 - 07:01 .

[Addai]

Mike Smith wrote...
As for the death of Alistair ending the Theirin line-let it end. I'm not terribly impressed by either Cailan or Alistair. It's better to give it to the Mac Tir-Couslands. If Anora and the male Cousland don't have a heir, let them foster one from Fergus(assuming he has children).

This seems to be a common opinion for Anora romancers (I live with one ), but Eamon does have a point that the line of Calenhad is one of the few things that give Ferelden any sense of national unity.  Succession instability brought down empires and ravaged countries.  In this, Alistair seems to take things more seriously than Anora does.  But, it seems the writers intend for their to be no heir regardless, so I'm guessing Ferelden is headed for a War of the Roses.

Modifié par Addai67, 28 octobre 2011 - 07:03 .

[Mike3207]

We really don't know if the execution is before or after Loghain goes through the Joining. I assume they hold off until Loghain survives the Joining, but there is no way to tell.

[nos_astra]

Wereparrot wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
As well, why the hell does Riordan not say or do anything when Alistair gets carted off to be executed? Hello, you just lost one warden there?

I suppose it's because Alistair has involved himself in politics, so if Riordan had stepped in it would've looked like he was supporting Alistair's claim, and therefore involving himself in politics aswell. So it's more complicated than merely losing a Warden; while he is losing a Warden, he sheds a man who could become a liability to the Warden ideal. That said, the Warden is also up to the neck in politics.

That doesn't make sense. With Alistair gone Riordan is left with the Warden (who's involved in politics up to his/her nose, potentially even engaged to Anora) and Loghain, an older man who was his sworn enemy like ten minutes ago, very willing to kill you all, and has yet to survive the Joining.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ferelden's dependency on a line is holding it back more than anything. Stability on its own means stagnation and the Thereins seem to have an excellent record in that regard.

Let them die and have Ferelden evolve.

[tklivory]

Regarding Caesar (bit late posting)

Ahh, but don't forget Livia... Augustus was the main power, but it was Livia who appointed Augustus' heir through machination and politics, and thus to a great extent dictated the Imperial legacy. She certainly managed to influence Augustus on several major issues, including deification, his generals, and public policy.

I wonder how Anora compares to Livia vis a vis Elizabeth I, since Elizabeth was born into her title, but Livia acquired it through marriage, like Anora.

Actually, I honestly think Anora is patterned after Empress Wu Zetian. The comparison seems more apt in that her right to power came from marriage rather than by birth, and she was willing to overcome any obstacle to get the throne. Also, the fact that she ruled as an excellent administrator and in fact was the de facto ruler behind the throne even before she officially became Empress makes her a better IRL monarch for comparison with Anora than Elizabeth.

Modifié par tklivory, 28 octobre 2011 - 07:20 .

[tklivory]

@ KoP - look how long it took Rome to shed the Julii...

[KnightofPhoenix]

Rome functionned differently. The main power was always the army.
Besides, Rome certaintly did not lag behind everyone else and remain primitive as Ferelden when ruled by Thereins.

And I would not overestimate Livy's influence.

[Wereparrot]

klarabella wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
As well, why the hell does Riordan not say or do anything when Alistair gets carted off to be executed? Hello, you just lost one warden there?

I suppose it's because Alistair has involved himself in politics, so if Riordan had stepped in it would've looked like he was supporting Alistair's claim, and therefore involving himself in politics aswell. So it's more complicated than merely losing a Warden; while he is losing a Warden, he sheds a man who could become a liability to the Warden ideal. That said, the Warden is also up to the neck in politics.

That doesn't make sense. With Alistair gone Riordan is left with the Warden (who's involved in politics up to his/her nose, potentially even engaged to Anora) and Loghain, an older man who was his sworn enemy like ten minutes ago, very willing to kill you all, and has yet to survive the Joining.

Yeah, but I guess that's the dilemma of the piece: the man or the ideal, and Riordan chose the ideal. The rest of the Wardens seem to care a lot more about the whole political impartiality thing than Alistair and the Warden, which is probably a weakness as well as a supposed strength if Riordan did sacrifice the man for the ideal. I wouldn't be surprised if the Wardens had a 'any man who falls behind is left behind' philosophy, at least as regards their own ideal.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 28 octobre 2011 - 07:38 .

[Bleachrude]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ferelden's dependency on a line is holding it back more than anything. Stability on its own means stagnation and the Thereins seem to have an excellent record in that regard.

Let them die and have Ferelden evolve.

There's a very good chance that it would evolve into the Free Marches unfortunately...The Free Marches _IS_ what Ferelden was BEFORE the coming of Calenhad.

Hell, it looks like the Petaghast clan in Nevarra is trying to become the Free Marches Calenhad line...

[tklivory]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Rome functionned differently. The main power was always the army.
Besides, Rome certaintly did not lag behind everyone else and remain primitive as Ferelden when ruled by Thereins.

And I would not overestimate Livy's influence.

Ummm, Livy or Livia?  Two different people...

I wish we knew a bit more about the time period between Caledhan and Arland.  In some ways, I see the Theirin as a correlative to the Julii, in that the founder (Caledhan) forge a monarchy type of government out of a collective (Octavius/Caesar), and then it sees a slow decline of the line until Arland (who sounds as careless/arbitrary/power-hungry in some ways as Caligula).  It's not a perfect analogy, but there are some correlations...

And while it is true that Rome didn't lag behind, it is also true that, in general, created fantasy settings *never* reflect a realistic pace of development.  I mean, even the 'developed' countries of Thedas, compared to the 'real world', lag waaaaaaaaaaay behind in terms of technological and societal growth.  (yes, yes, magic, the Blights, &c &c &c).  However, this is a drawback of fantasy in general, where the worlds have millenia of history and no technology, and cannot be pinpointed as a problem exclusive to Dragon Age.

Also, the 'Wardens shouldn't be political' ideal is just that - an ideal, as much as pure democracy or pure communism, both of which have never seen the light of day in this world (at least, not on a national scale).  I mean, it's made pretty clear that the Grey Wardens basically *are* the government in the Anderfels, and if that's not political then I don't know what is.  It was Sophia Dryden who really spoiled that pie, particularly in Fereldan.

Modifié par tklivory, 28 octobre 2011 - 08:58 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ Bleach

And if Ferelden can't keep itself together, then they deserve that fate.

Unity and stability for their own sakes are not something I value intrinsically. Not when the end result is an irrational and weak country like Ferelden. 

tklivory wrote...

Ummm, Livy or Livia?  Two different people...

I wish we knew a bit more about the time period between Caledhan and Arland.  In some ways, I see the Theirin as a correlative to the Julii, in that the founder (Caledhan) forge a monarchy type of government out of a collective (Octavius/Caesar), and then it sees a slow decline of the line until Arland (who sounds as careless/arbitrary/power-hungry in some ways as Caligula).  It's not a perfect analogy, but there are some correlations...

Livia, apologies.

Ehhh no. Augustus is drastically different than Calenhad and the system he left in place is extremily different, and the gap in the amount of power they held is very large.
Very very very few correlations with very very broad similarities shared by too many polities that I'd consider the analogy not so pertinente.

And while it is true that Rome didn't lag behind, it is also true that, in general, created fantasy settings *never* reflect a realistic pace of development.  I mean, even the 'developed' countries of Thedas, compared to the 'real world', lag waaaaaaaaaaay behind in terms of technological and societal growth.  (yes, yes, magic, the Blights, &c &c &c).  However, this is a drawback of fantasy in general, where the worlds have millenia of history and no technology, and cannot be pinpointed as a problem exclusive to Dragon Age.

Relative development. Ferelden lags behind all nations of Thedas, barring the Anderfels.
It is considered a joke and barely civilized by Thedasian standards.

[tklivory]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Livia, apologies.

All right, just making sure.  While it is true that she wasn't a co-ruler head of state that Hollywood likes to make her out to be, it is also true that in the official histories she is a dutiful wife, but in diaries and household accounts she wielded a tremendous amount of influence.  She certainly had a major role in putting her son on the throne (whether or not she engineered Julia's childrens' deaths), as Tiberius would not normally have succeeded Octavius.  She also was a huge proponent of the deification of Caesar and later Octavius, though she never cast an actual vote.  The rest... I think that was my starvation-induced shiny squirrel moment, now that I read my original post about Livia.   I don't think she absolutely shaped Imperial Rome, but I do believe that she had influence.

Ehhh no. Augustus is drastically different than Calenhad and the system he left in place is extremily different, and the gap in the amount of power they held is very large.
Very very very few correlations with very very broad similarities shared by too many polities that I'd consider the analogy not so pertinente.

I guess I was thinking in terms of spare outline, not practical detail.  All that talk of Caesar and Augustus... Meh.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to compare Caledhan to Henry I?  He had to form a coalition among nobles that otherwise didn't particularly want to cooperate, though in his case it was to re-establish a kingdom, not build it completely.  The form of government he established was also closer to the Bannorn than the Senate, and the country (re)established was also a more limited scale than the vast tracts of Rome.

I still think Arland is supposed to represent a degeneration of the Theirin line at which point they assume the power is theirs to use by fiat, though, much like some historians depict Caligula.

Relative development. Ferelden lags behind all nations of Thedas, barring the Anderfels.
It is considered a joke and barely civilized by Thedasian standards.

Fair point.  Fereldan to me more resembles early Plantagenet England than anything else, and they certainly were considered a backwater nation.

Modifié par tklivory, 28 octobre 2011 - 09:33 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

tklivory wrote...
All right, just making sure.  While it is true that she wasn't a co-ruler head of state that Hollywood likes to make her out to be, it is also true that in the official histories she is a dutiful wife, but in diaries and household accounts she wielded a tremendous amount of influence.  She certainly had a major role in putting her son on the throne (whether or not she engineered Julia's childrens' deaths), as Tiberius would not normally have succeeded Octavius.  She also was a huge proponent of the deification of Caesar and later Octavius, though she never cast an actual vote.  The rest... I think that was my starvation-induced shiny squirrel moment, now that I read my original post about Livia.   I don't think she absolutely shaped Imperial Rome, but I do believe that she had influence.

One thing we should keep in mind is that Romans were obsessed with the evil stepmother trope, so I would not be surprised if they exagerrated her influence and what she did.
It's unlikely that she engineered Julia's children's death and by that time, Tiberius was really the only available option for Augustus. So I do not think Livia had that much say for Tiberius getting the throne, it was made so because Augustus had little choice. I doubt Livia would have been able to do anything if Augusts had a better option.  

Yea she had influence, and was a worthy wife for Augustus, but she held no control over him.

I guess I was thinking in terms of spare outline, not practical detail.  All that talk of Caesar and Augustus... Meh.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to compare Caledhan to Henry I?  He had to form a coalition among nobles that otherwise didn't particularly want to cooperate, though in his case it was to re-establish a kingdom, not build it completely.  The form of government he established was also closer to the Bannorn than the Senate, and the country (re)established was also a more limited scale than the vast tracts of Rome.

Yea makes more sense.
Augustus' regime is very much military, with the semblance of civic government. The image of civil government however was extremily important, something that Septimius Severus failed to understand. That's not Calenhad's Ferelden.

I still think Arland is supposed to represent a degeneration of the Theirin line at which point they assume the power is theirs to use by fiat, though, much like some historians depict Caligula.

Arland gew up to be that way because of treacherous nobles who plotted to remove him from succession and have a puppet in his place.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 28 octobre 2011 - 09:43 .

[BlackEmperor]

Addai67 wrote...

No, he believes the Orlesians are just as much a threat as the darkspawn.  Bringing the nobility in line is a means.  Basically he saw the war as having two fronts:  Keeping the chevaliers out and defeating the darkspawn.  It's true he didn't believe it was actually a Blight- but no one did, except Duncan and he was not sure.  Loghain admits later that he made a strategic error in pulling troops out to secure the border with Orlais, but that's hindsight for you.  A massive army of heavy horse at Ferelden's border, only 30 years after it took everything they had to defeat the same army, was a real threat.

I thought he didn't consider the Orlesians a threat until after Cailan's death? I read it as him being worried about an Orlesian invasion when Fereldan is weak and divided after the defeat at Ostagar, while the country is plunging into civil war--and not before. His full army is at Ostagar. It's afterward that he divides it--to guard the border against a possible invasion and to bring the nobles into line. Dealing with the darkspawn is an afterthought, judging by how few resources he's comitted to fighting the darkspawn up until the Landsmeet.

I don't have any notion of how winnable the battle was either. If anyone else does, please speak up. I simply didn't have any evidence that it was not winnable and therefore assumed it was, but that's neither here nor there.

Duncan does know this is a Blight. He's 100% certain. I don't know whether this was an origin-specific line of dialogue or not (possibly mage or human noble, since I've played those two recently), but I distinctly remember him telling the pc that he knows with all his heart that this is a Blight. He's not so direct with others because
1) There's been no sighting of the Archdemon, which means he's short on physical evidence, and
2) Explaining that he can sense the Archdemon's existence with his tainted blood would betray Grey Warden secrets, in addition to (not unreasonably) making him sound crazy and thus jeopordize the support he has. Not that I think it would've mattered. I'm with the others who have said that it wouldn't make any difference whether Loghain or anyone else knew the truth because they'd simply be unwilling to believe.

Again, no- I don't see it that way.  Cailan is not Ferelden.  If Loghain believed the battle was lost and charged anyway, throwing the lives of his men away, how is that not also treason against Ferelden?  I consider "treason" a pretty meaningless word on a pitched battlefield.  As for why he didn't pull out earlier, it's impossible to really say.  But if his plan all along was to kill Cailan, there were lots of easier ways to do it, and he wouldn't have tried to convince Cailan not to be on the front lines. That was all the king's doing.

It could be argued that if the battle was truly unwinnable that throwing away the army that helps keep Fereldan free is treason--but not if the battle is entirely winnable and he chooses not to commit his forces. It could go either way.

There would've been easier ways to kill Cailan, but being "easier" isn't the point. It's about being convincing and having plausible deniability. Cailan is a healthy young man in his prime. Any kind of sudden death by poison or assassin's blade or hunting accident starts immediately looking suspicious. If what he's trying to do is unite Fereldan around himself and Anora, having a plausible death in the form of a darkspawn battle is ideal. He can claim the battle was simply unwinnable, that he's doing what's best for the nation, etc. As an added bonus, the threat of the darkspawn gives him leverage over the bannorn to force them to fall in line. As Eamon tells you, Loghain is betting on anyone who disagrees with his newly acquired office of regent cannot afford to fight against both him and the darkspawn, and therefore have no choice but to back him.

And it's a brilliant plan! It vey nearly works. He stumbles in its execution, overestimating how much pull he has with the bannorn, overestimating the threat of Orlais, and underestimating how dangerous the darkspawn threat is. Naturally, everything is obvious in hindsight.

As for why he tries to convince Cailan to not be in the thick of things? A couple of possibilities. The first is, again, plausible deniability. By making every effort to keep him safe, he builds cover amongst his own troops. You saw Cailan at Ostagar--do you think there was ever any chance anyone was going to convince him of anything once he set his mind on something? Loghain's not stupid. He's known Cailan since he was born. He knows that he's not risking anything by putting on a show of trying to convince him to plan the battle differently. He knows there's zero chance that he will actually persuade Cailan to change his mind.

A second possibility is that Loghain really doesn't plan on betraying Cailan right up until that strategy session right before the battle. That's when he decides it's hopeless to try to get the king to act differently. That's when he figures that if Cailan's so desperate to get himself killed, then Fereldan is probably better off without him and a stronger leader is needed.

It's a matter of speculation as to whether it's pre-meditated or a snap judgement, but if it is pre-meditated, it's a question of degrees. In the first scenario, Loghain has seen the kind of king Cailan has become and has long sought to replace him (with himself in the short term, a more suitable king in the long term). Ostagar is just the perfect opportunity he's always been waiting for. In the second, it's the act of a desperate general who thinks the king is going to lead the nation to ruin with his antics. Both are treason, in my mind. Both are for the greater good in Loghain's mind. Just different ways it could've played out.

[Addai]

Cailan invited Orlesian chevaliers into Ferelden before Ostagar. He and Loghain argue about this, so as of Ostagar Loghain already knows they're incoming. Four legions, which is a huge army by any definition of "legion," when you're talking about heavy horse knights. This is why he was so concerned that the entire army not go down with Cailan's ship, because he believed Ferelden was about to be invaded on two fronts and not just one.

Loghain is not above underhanded scheming to get someone out of the way. He poisons Eamon prior to Ostagar to remove one of Cailan's allies during the showdown over Orlais- intending not to kill Eamon, but just to sideline him. Why go to all that trouble and machination if he intends to kill Cailan?

This is even if you can picture Loghain sacrificing an entire army to kill one man, a man he has day and night personal access to. I didn't believe him capable of that even when I was a Loghain hater. lol This is Rowan's and Maric's son we're talking about- the woman Loghain loved and his best friend. I think he bent over backward to save Cailan from himself, precisely because he couldn't do the pragmatic thing and give him an Antivan cocktail.

I do think that Cailan being out of the picture was the silver lining he saw in abandoning the field at Ostagar. It made things easier for him, even if that didn't prove to be true in the long run. Gaider said he didn't make a final decision until he saw the beacon light. I imagine not even Loghain knows whether his motives were entirely pure, or what "pure" means in a situation like that. To me it makes a better story to think that it was neither malice nor purely a tactical retreat, but a mixture in Loghain's subconscious.

[Joy Divison]

Persephone wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...
Caesar - the guy who circumvented legal proceedings to crucify the pirates who treated him like a king

He's overrated in my opinion.

Dying before your time is always good publicity.  Caesar never had to solve the mess he created.  Augustus did.

What mess is that? And without Caesar, Augustus would not even be a footnote in history. (Doesn't make Augustus any less brilliant) The mess was actually created by the "liberators" and Mark Antony.

And what would Caesar be without Marrus, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, etc.?  That he was assassinated would suggest he didn't solve Rome's crisis as well as he thought he had 

[Bleachrude]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


Arland gew up to be that way because of treacherous nobles who plotted to remove him from succession and have a puppet in his place.

Not sure I'd agree with that...Sophia Dryden _WAS_ commander of the grey and she didnt strike me as anyone's puppet. Indeed, she was able to cajole a fiar number of wardens to follow her banner...

Remember, there's a codex entry BEFORE she became a gey warden where she talks about how uneasy she feels about Arland (and IIRC, she notes that most people don't seem to worry about him like she does)