216 réponses à ce sujet

[RagingCyclone]

@Sylvianus---regarding what Flemeth told Maric about Loghain's betrayal. Remember Flemeth talks a lot in hyperbole...by betraying Cailan one could argue that it was an indirect betrayal of Maric...as in Maric's bloodline or legacy. Flemeth, and to a certain extent Morrigan, can many times not be taken literally...there are hidden meanings especially in regards to Flemeth.

Modifié par RagingCyclone, 13 décembre 2011 - 05:30 .

[Sylvianus]

RagingCyclone wrote...

@Sylvianus---regarding what Flemeth told Maric about Loghain's betrayal. Remember Flemeth talks a lot in hyperbole...by betraying Cailan one could argue that it was an indirect betrayal of Maric...as in Maric's bloodline or legacy. Flemeth, and to a certain extent Morrigan, can many times not be taken literally...there are hidden meanings especially in regards to Flemeth.

How is it a betrayal against Marric ?

From the moment she admits herself that she can only feel some things in advance, and that her interpretations are not always accurate, I wonder how you do  to think she is just playing with hyperbole, and that there is always something behind what she says.

You are spirited to imagine a character who knows everything in advance, is omniscient, in other words, and who knew absolutely what she said, mocking Marric.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 13 décembre 2011 - 05:40 .

[RagingCyclone]

Sylvianus wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

@Sylvianus---regarding what Flemeth told Maric about Loghain's betrayal. Remember Flemeth talks a lot in hyperbole...by betraying Cailan one could argue that it was an indirect betrayal of Maric...as in Maric's bloodline or legacy. Flemeth, and to a certain extent Morrigan, can many times not be taken literally...there are hidden meanings especially in regards to Flemeth.

How is it a betrayal against Marric ?

From the moment she admits herself that she can only feel some things in advance, and that her interpretations are not always accurate, I wonder how you do  to think she is just playing with hyperbole, and that there is always something behind what she says.

You are spirited to imagine a character who knows everything in advance, is omniscient, in other words, and who knew absolutely what she said, mocking Marric.

Bolded points to show I already stated how it can be construed as a betrayal of Maric. Not everything is in black and white...not everything is as literal as you want it to be...especially when regarding Flemeth.  But if you want a literal betrayal...that little moment between Loghain and Rowan...that could also be seen as a betrayal. Look for the subtlies...

Modifié par RagingCyclone, 13 décembre 2011 - 05:44 .

[Sylvianus]

RagingCyclone wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...

@Sylvianus---regarding what Flemeth told Maric about Loghain's betrayal. Remember Flemeth talks a lot in hyperbole...by betraying Cailan one could argue that it was an indirect betrayal of Maric...as in Maric's bloodline or legacy. Flemeth, and to a certain extent Morrigan, can many times not be taken literally...there are hidden meanings especially in regards to Flemeth.

How is it a betrayal against Marric ?

From the moment she admits herself that she can only feel some things in advance, and that her interpretations are not always accurate, I wonder how you do  to think she is just playing with hyperbole, and that there is always something behind what she says.

You are spirited to imagine a character who knows everything in advance, is omniscient, in other words, and who knew absolutely what she said, mocking Marric.

Bolded points to show I already stated how it can be construed as a betrayal of Maric. Not everything is in black and white...not everything is as literal as you want it to be...especially when regarding Flemeth.

I still don't understand what's your point.

So flemeth was absolutely right ? she knowed that it would be Cailan, the Betrayal , she is omniscient ? The point being that Flemeth admits herself that her interpretations are not accurate, and that the result is indeed different from what she told, even if for some people it's still a betrayal, indirectly. She feels that somes things will happens, but does not know how and when for example.

What is it ? an indication that she might has some limits, yes. And let's not forget that isn't the only indication that I mentioned.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 13 décembre 2011 - 09:35 .

[Sylvianus]

RagingCyclone wrote...
 But if you want a literal betrayal...that little moment between Loghain and Rowan...that could also be seen as a betrayal. Look for the subtlies...

Care to explain ?

Modifié par Sylvianus, 13 décembre 2011 - 05:56 .

[RagingCyclone]

@Sylianus---I am saying that Flemeth was right. She never said what kind of betrayal Loghain would commit. She may purposefully leave out the details because of her limitations...basically she does not know the details herself...but she was correct about a betrayal and by whom. While I agree she not all powerful and has those limitations...she is a master manipulator...and Morrigan is not far behind her in that she is still learning Flemeth's tricks. They both know how to play on nuances very well and can make a person believe they are more powerful than they actually are.

[Sylvianus]

RagingCyclone wrote...

@Sylianus---I am saying that Flemeth was right. She never said what kind of betrayal Loghain would commit. She may purposefully leave out the details because of her limitations...basically she does not know the details herself...but she was correct about a betrayal and by whom. While I agree she not all powerful and has those limitations...she is a master manipulator...and Morrigan is not far behind her in that she is still learning Flemeth's tricks. They both know how to play on nuances very well and can make a person believe they are more powerful than they actually are.

I know exactly what Flemeth is, it does not mean she never tells the truth sometimes, she has no reason to lie to Marric when she is saying that her interpretations are not always accurate and does not know how, and when events will occur. she could simply reveal the truth, saying those words, without the desire to say more. There is no need to talk about her interpretations.

Flemeth's words have no meaning if they are deliberate. Everyone's opinion.

Also, Flemeth is a masterpiece, maybe a god, but I believe that we should not give too much weight to this sort of infallibility in the behavior of Flemeth that you give to her. We should avoid getting caught up in this legend.

The resentment felt by Flemeth, and she still feels for men despite centuries because of her own story, shows that no, she is not infallible in her behavior, her mistake with Morrigan, although she's manipulative, shows  she can also be mistaken about some things. Not everything occurs like she wants.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 13 décembre 2011 - 10:01 .

[Teddie Sage]

alex90c wrote...

Teddie Sage wrote...

Not everything is ABOUT Morrigan. She gives you a few jabs here and there and will probably save you if you go for the Dark Ritual ending, but she isn't essential to the plot at all. You don't even have to befriend her. Like Huntress said, the Warden and Hawke ARE the essential characters.

Hawke... essential?

Yeah....

Don't make me laugh. Hawke is the catalyst for everything in Dragon Age 2. Without him, the whole group would be separated and their own plans would be foiled. Hawke's existed is the link all those people together. Without him, the wouldn't be any Dragon Age 2 and there wouldn't be any sequel on the way. Hawke and his crew set in stone the future of Thedas and its people. If you can't see that, you're obviously blind.

Modifié par Teddie Sage, 13 décembre 2011 - 09:51 .

[Plaintiff]

Sylvianus wrote...
Besides, She said to Marric, Loghain will betray him, it was not the case. She was wrong. Loghain never betrayed Marric. Loghain betrayed Cailan. This is a strong indication that she has limits, even if she is very powerful.

So if your friend's failure to act caused your son to be killed in battle, you would not consider that to be a personal betrayal?

Alright then.

[Aaleel]

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
Besides, She said to Marric, Loghain will betray him, it was not the case. She was wrong. Loghain never betrayed Marric. Loghain betrayed Cailan. This is a strong indication that she has limits, even if she is very powerful.

So if your friend's failure to act caused your son to be killed in battle, you would not consider that to be a personal betrayal?

Alright then.

Call it what it was.  He abandoned the King and left him to die at the hands of darkspawn.  That's definitely an act of betrayal of a friend to do that to his son.

[Sylvianus]

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
Besides, She said to Marric, Loghain will betray him, it was not the case. She was wrong. Loghain never betrayed Marric. Loghain betrayed Cailan. This is a strong indication that she has limits, even if she is very powerful.

So if your friend's failure to act caused your son to be killed in battle, you would not consider that to be a personal betrayal?

Alright then.

I know exactly what Loghain did. I have always said that he had betrayed Cailan, no more, no less. I cut this head off  for what he did. Did you even read the book? I ask.

No because when flemeth is saying ooooh loghain will betray you. We immediately think: I knew loghain was a villain, and we expect to see him to change and become a traitor. blah blah, like all the people with dao.

No, loghain is the man most loyal to Marric in this book. He will sacrifice everything for this man and what he represents for him, even Rowan.

Marric will rejoice that the prediction of Flemeth has not been realized ,as Loghain has never betrayed him. ever. Even in the next book, The calling, Loghain will save him against the Orlesians.

We must go further than this idiotic simplicity that flemeth was totally and simply right,  loghain totally betrayed Marric, OMG, that's it.

What must be understood, is that the warningof Flemeth is vicious, not entirely true, and not entirely wrong.

what's the point of warning to anyone living: Loghain will betray you ( and that doesn't happen at all, on the contrary ). Tell me. it is clear that the interest in this story is not there.

The most important thing is the real manifestation of what she said, her interpretations are not always accurate.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 14 décembre 2011 - 02:42 .

[Plaintiff]

Sylvianus wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
Besides, She said to Marric, Loghain will betray him, it was not the case. She was wrong. Loghain never betrayed Marric. Loghain betrayed Cailan. This is a strong indication that she has limits, even if she is very powerful.

So if your friend's failure to act caused your son to be killed in battle, you would not consider that to be a personal betrayal?

Alright then.

I know exactly what Loghain did. I have always said that he had betrayed Cailan, no more, no less. I cut this head off  for what he did. Did you even read the book? I ask.

No because when flemeth is saying ooooh loghain will betray you. We immediately think: I knew loghain was a villain, and we expect to see him to change and become a traitor. blah blah, like all the people with dao.

No, loghain is the man most loyal to Marric in this book. He will sacrifice everything for this man and what he represents for him, even Rowan.

Marric will rejoice that the prediction of Flemeth has not been realized ,as Loghain has never betrayed him. ever.
We must go further than this idiotic simplicity that flemeth was totally and simply right,  loghain totally betrayed Marric, OMG, that's it.

What must be understood, is that the warningof Flemeth is vicious, not entirely true, and not entirely wrong.

what's the point of warning to anyone living: Loghain will betray you ( and that doesn't happen at all, on the contrary ). Tell me. it is clear that the interest in this story is not there.

The most important thing is the real manifestation of what she said, her interpretations are not always accurate.

So if your best friend killed your son, you wouldn't feel betrayed?

[Sylvianus]

Sigh. you are just missing the point and playing with words; I don't know,, someone tell me at 18 years that my best friend, will betray me, nothing happened, nothing ever happened until my death. No my friend who will betray ME, saved me many times on the contrary. My best friend all my life, remained loyal, helped me to gain the throne and to manage the kingdom. I keep about my best friend a good feeling before I die.

I don't know what the hell will happen while I am dead. But yes I would feel betrayed If only I was aware of this treason.

That's why I said it's not entirely true, not entirely wrong. Remain in your simplicity if you wish.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 14 décembre 2011 - 03:13 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Teddie Sage wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Teddie Sage wrote...

Not everything is ABOUT Morrigan. She gives you a few jabs here and there and will probably save you if you go for the Dark Ritual ending, but she isn't essential to the plot at all. You don't even have to befriend her. Like Huntress said, the Warden and Hawke ARE the essential characters.

Hawke... essential?

Yeah....

Don't make me laugh. Hawke is the catalyst for everything in Dragon Age 2. Without him, the whole group would be separated and their own plans would be foiled. Hawke's existed is the link all those people together. Without him, the wouldn't be any Dragon Age 2 and there wouldn't be any sequel on the way. Hawke and his crew set in stone the future of Thedas and its people. If you can't see that, you're obviously blind.

Alright, to combat this argument, I'm going to have to put my SPOILER ALERT!!! pants on.

SPOILER ALERT!!!


There are three Acts, each one containing one nugget of necessity to the overall story in regards to Hawke.

Act 1 - the idol in the Deep Roads. Without Hawke, the expedition would have still made their way down to the same area, as Varric or Bartrand would have likely found Anders and gotten his maps on their own or found another entrance. After all, Anders says himself there are multiple entrances in the area and Bartrand already had maps to the ruins once he got in. So the idol would have been discovered, Varric would have been left to rot, but Bartrand would still have snuck out and gotten the idol into the hands of Meredith.

Act 2 - The Qunari would still be in Kirkwall in Act 2. The Chantry (especially Sister Patriece) would still have been attempting to kill and stir up trouble between the humans and Kossith. Isabella would have still been in Kirkwall with the Tome, and had no way of leaving (if anything, Hawke and Varric would have been good helpers at getting her a chance to leave, rather than being reasons to stay, at least as of Act 2). Without Hawke there, the Qunari would have still gone on the warpath, would have still captured Isabella and recovered the book, but may have done it sooner without Hawke running interference (knowingly or unknowingly) for Isabella. This would have led Orsino and Meredith to work together to kicking out the Qunari, leaving things set up for Act 3 the exact same.

Act 3 - Templars hate mages. Mages are flat out crazy in Kirkwall. Meredith is possesesed by evil idol-of-evilness. Hawke picking a side does not play into things. Anders blows up the Chantry with or without Hawke's help. Meredith declares the Right of Annulment regardless of any choice Hawke makes, Orsino goes Harvester regardless of any choice Hawke makes. And I have no doubt in my mind that Mereidth would have been put down by the armies of Kirkwall when she went power hungry, even without Hawke and Company's help.


So where is Hawke's huge contribution? The idol he found would have still been found. The Kossith would have still gone on a warpath regardless, since Patriece was so hell bent on it, causing them to kill the Viscount and then have Meredith and Orsino squabble over the scraps. Anders would have still done his magic trick on the Chantry. And everyone would have still fought and killed everyone else.

Its a story with no protagonist. Just a convenient bystander with a sword twice as long as himself.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 14 décembre 2011 - 03:00 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

So if your best friend killed your son, you wouldn't feel betrayed?

If it led to the birth of the OGB?

Nah, I'd be cool. Everyone's got to die sometime. But a god isn't reborn every day!

[Plaintiff]

Sylvianus wrote...

Sigh. you are just missing the point and playing with words; I don't know,, someone tell me at 18 years that my best friend, will betray me, nothing happened, nothing ever happened until my death. No my friend who will betray ME, saved me many times on the contrary. My best friend all my life, remained loyal, helped me to gain the throne and to manage the kingdom. I keep about my best friend a good feeling before I die.

I don't know what the hell will happen while I am dead. But yes I would feel betrayed If only I was aware of this treason.

That's why I said it's not entirely true, not entirely wrong. Remain in your simplicity if you wish.

Just because Maric isn't aware doesn't change anything. Unknown beytrayal is still betrayal.

[Sylvianus]

That changes everything. Maric did not live this betrayal, he has not seen this betrayal, he has not felt this betrayal.
He was not a witness of this prediction. The goal of a prediction is that also it's occurs for whoever is in question, and could be a witness, whether  he likes it or not, as if it was his destiny.

He will live happy with the thought of a loyal loghain. So it is more complicated. This betrayal, whether you like it or not seems very weak in view of the warning concerning him and only him. not his family, not his friends. This warning concerned him. Be careful, Loghain will betray you. During his life, he doesn't stop asking himself when it will happen.

The fact is that he is pleased that this betrayal did not happen,  he thought that the witch was mistaken, and that  is a kind of irony in the story.

What you consider an absolute betrayal, is not for me. In fact, Loghain remained absolutely loyal to Marric, betrayed Cailan, the son of Marric and a new king, a different king. You are simply stating, Loghain betrayed Marric who is dead many years ago, because he betrayed his son. you just put everything in correlation, you delegate loyalty to a king and a man to another with a different story,. Loghain, betrayed Cailan for different reasons that don't concern at all Maric personally, I won't say he betrayed Marric, because he never did that. No matter what happens after his death, about his children, his children's children is a story that occurs after him. So yes, and no.

What must be understood over all to me, is that by a kind of perversion, Flemeth was right, yes. That's all.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 14 décembre 2011 - 06:53 .

[DreamwareStudio]

*** decided to skip the argument except to say it's impossible to betray a dead man ***

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 décembre 2011 - 09:16 .

[ColGali]

 Ok, bring her back, but please don't ruin the ending of Witch Hunt. Thank you!

[Plaintiff]

google_calasade wrote...

*** decided to skip the argument except to say it's impossible to betray a dead man ***

It's fairly obvious what is meant by Flemeth's prophecy. There is no question that Maric would consider the murder of his son a betrayal if he was alive to witness it, and to say that Loghain is somehow unaware of that is ludicrous.

His actual state of existence is irrelevent.

[Sylvianus]

lol. You are talking about what you didn't read, and you don't even know and you are stating simple sentences, just obvious.., you don't know what the hell you are talking about. And you are again just missing the point, nobody said it's impossible to betray a dead man. Not everybody needs like you to be in an absolute position, forgetting all the context, and who want to stop to the most categorical judgments and simple. We should stop, because that's just uninteresting.

By the way, no, it's fairly not obvious, if she admits herself that her interpretations aren't always accurate, and doesn't know how and when they will occur. Think about it.. That could mean something else than just your simplistic analysis, and devoid of any subtlety.

The most important point is the certainty that the interpretations of Flemeth in the abstract, will always be right. And in the concrete, it will run sometimes more or less viciously, not necessarily as expected. by her and whoever is the target of her prediction.

( Also for example, she may feel that the world is on the brink of chaos, that something terrible will happen like she said in DA2. But does she really know what will happen and when? I didn't have this feeling in DA2. )

Modifié par Sylvianus, 14 décembre 2011 - 02:52 .

[DreamwareStudio]

Plaintiff wrote...

google_calasade wrote...

*** decided to skip the argument except to say it's impossible to betray a dead man ***

It's fairly obvious what is meant by Flemeth's prophecy. There is no question that Maric would consider the murder of his son a betrayal if he was alive to witness it, and to say that Loghain is somehow unaware of that is ludicrous.

His actual state of existence is irrelevent.

I would say arguing with an argument you have not seen in some desperate attempt to validate whatever it is you believe is quite ludicrous.

Cailan coming from Marric's seed is inconsequential.  Had Marric been alive or Cailan a more sound king, Loghain would have acted entirely differently.  Loghain believed Cailan would be an ineffectual wartime king (as no doubt Marric himself would have believed given Cailan's exuberance for war and foolish need to be recognized along the same lines as the heros of old).  Loghain simply took whatever steps he deemed necessary to ensure Ferelden's survival.  There is no betrayal of Marric or Marric's memory in that, because from what I've seen, Marric was not much different than Loghain himself regarding the love he had for his country.

Going off of real history, love for one's country often out-weighed emotions for one's children and visa versa...

Loghain is one of the more complex characters involved in a complex situation.  To judge him on the surface based on Flemeth's statement (written after Origins to better serve the current direction) is to misunderstand Loghain and his actions.

There, I've said what I deleted, and bow out of this part of the conversation.

Modifié par google_calasade, 14 décembre 2011 - 04:08 .

[RagingCyclone]

Sylvianus wrote...

RagingCyclone wrote...
 But if you want a literal betrayal...that little moment between Loghain and Rowan...that could also be seen as a betrayal. Look for the subtlies...

Care to explain ?

I see you are still arguing the betrayal part. For this instance you can't see sleeping with the woman who is betrothed to Maric as a betrayal? If you don't see that...it's fairly safe to say you just don't see any kind of betrayal except a blatant one and it's no use arguing about this any more. <_<

[MegaBadExample]

Rawgrim wrote...

Or...get Morrigan back, and ruin her too.

Exactly.
 
I was pretty p*ssed when BioWare basically forgot about the OGB and Morrigan in DA2. But... Then when I actually played the game... I was so very thankful she was not in it. I mean, did you guys see Alistair? Ruined forever.