373 réponses à ce sujet

[Yorenec]

Most of this post is based  how I saw it on my first playthrough as a male dwarf commoner when I didn't know particularly how things were going to end or what was still to come.

When the option came up to make Loghain go through the joining or execute him, I originally spared him and made him go through the joining. Once I saw that it pissed off Alistair and caused him to leave, I reloaded to an earlier save and tried another option.

After three or so tries, I realized there was no alternative and I couldn't have both of them. So when the time came, I executed Loghain.

Why? Because everything he had done up until that point was completely counter-productive to stopping the Blight. He was a liability, and whose to say he wouldn't have continued to be a liability after becoming a Grey Warden. Yes, he was a great tactician and a hero of the rebellion, that's fine and all, but I was concerned with the NOW. People change, for both better and worse, and when I made my final decision on the matter, it seemed to me Loghain had changed for the worse. A lot of people talk about how "oh he takes his job as a Grey Warden seriously", that's fine if you're a fortune teller or travel back in time with the benefit of hindsight being 20/20.

I went with Alistair on that first playthrough, because while a bit childish, he had shown himself to be reliable. Loghain hadn't shown me anything.

On other playthroughs, I went with Loghain out of curiosity to see how things go. Sure he wants to redeem himself and he actually does if you give him the chance. To me that doesn't mean he's better, not to mention that as it is, Loghain is already in like his 50's-60's, he won't be useful for much longer. Maybe fifteen years at best. Alistair can still easily serve out of his remaining 28-29ish years. I also see the potential in Alistair, the same potential that Eamon and Duncan(both pretty wise guys) must have seen, to be better than Loghain and possibly Maric ever were. At least once he has some time to develop and get the childishness out of his system.

A lot of people say that Loghain was far more willing to do what it takes to win, and that's fine and all, I can understand that. The problem with that theory is, ends justify the means is only good when it works. When it fails, such as it did in every attempt by Loghain throughout the game, it's just something to laugh at and mock.

Modifié par Yorenec, 25 novembre 2009 - 06:47 .

[Obliterati]

tmp7704 wrote...

cooldevo wrote...

And that's a big part of it.  Most people didn't think it was a Blight because there was no archdemon seen anywhere in the land.  That's apparently what triggers a full Blight.  Anything else is not.  Because they hadn't seen one, they were skeptical that it was.  At the beginning it was very obvious they didn't think it was... even from when you first talk to Duncan after meeting the King that no one seems to think it was.  Cailan himself says how disappointed he is.  Who's to say Loghain wasn't the same way?  If it wasn't a Blight you don't need Wardens, and it is only a minor spil over of darkspawn.  That would be easy to handle, and would help draw away from the potential civil war brewing.

The catch to this is, Cailan may get away with presuming it's not a Blight etc because he's supposed to be a naive fool. Loghain supposedly being supreme leader etc should simply know better and plan for the worst rather than for the best  (or most convenient for him) case.

Instead, he acts no better than the "fool" Cailan, failing to gather the intelligence and then dismissing one threat (the Darkspawn) while making mountain out of molehill when it comes to another matter ("zomg Orlais troops may come to us!") and then based on such half-baked understanding of the big picture goes happy-go-lucky breaking oaths, betraying his own king and destroying the forces of his own country ... even though there is much simpler alternate route that's following the original plan of beating the supposedly weak darkspawn at south border first and then securing his west once that's done with.

That the man who lets his own paranoia cloud his vision to the point Loghain did is then supposed to be 'pragmatic and reasonable' choice for a Grey Warden and a valuable asset is just funny. Or sad.

Sorry to butt in here, but how do we know Loghain was wrong about the Orlesians? As far as we know, based on available information, the Orleasians ARE preparing to take advantage of the Blight and invade a shattered and prostate Ferelden.

Not trying to defend Loghains character flaws, of which there are many (and in my eyes, unforgivable), but I've not seen any proof that the Orlesians were harmless, and in fact,  there may be circumstantial evidence that they may have been planning something.

[RunCDFirst]

Ion515 wrote...
Is it just me, or is it usually believed
that someone who is blinded by hate to reason, is NOT in full capacity of his mind aware of the
consequences of his actions? 

You can try it in a court of law but it won't fly. There's a reason why hate crimes have harsh punishments.

Akka le Vil wrote...
But what we see in the game ? Seriously, that's not that. He takes evil actions but without them having a real gain over actual honourable actions. He goes much farther than needed, and ends usually up with completely counter-productive results. That's not "ruthless, but pragmatic and efficient", no.

Loghain does demonstrate that he's a terrible ruler. However, I don't believe his original intent was to kill the king but the Grey Wardens. During the war council he tries to convince Cailan to not stand at the front lines but back with him. Also, there's little evidence that actually ties Loghain to the crimes in the capitol. Even the slaver letter is signed by some other Bann (presumably loyal to Loghain). Not to mention Howe seems to act of his own accord while doing his nefarious deeds. 
But all of that aside, if we're talking strictly pragmatism, wouldn't it be more pragmatic to have Loghain fight the darkspawn then to kill him on the throne room's floor? You do agree that killing your own troops when the enemy's in your lands is a bad idea. And Loghain is a decorated war veteran and accomplished fighter. 
I don't think anyone is going to argue that Loghain's enslavement of the elves is good, or that poisoning Arl Eamon was a just decision. He truly deserves punishment for his crimes, some just wish that punishment be more akin to the Legion of the Dead then immediate execution.

[Valmy]

Akka le Vil wrote...
Loghain's choices don't strike me as pragmatic, they strike me as idiotic, even from his insane point of view.
If you are afraid of some foreign invasion, and you have something that is at the very least a big darkspawn raid on your territory, YOU DON'T DESTROY YOUR OWN ARMY AND START A CIVIL WAR !

Odd I thought he was trying to save his army and unite the country under his banner.  Didn't you understand what he thought was going on?

It seemed perfectly clear to him that the King was going to destroy the Army and since he invited the Orlesians to enter Ferelden they would just march in and take over.  Ergo he was SAVING his army and then he planned to unite it under his banner.  Well that last part didn't work out so well.  The Banns are very hard to control even in the best of times.

[RunCDFirst]

Obliterati wrote...
Sorry to butt in here, but how do we know Loghain was wrong about the Orlesians? As far as we know, based on available information, the Orleasians ARE preparing to take advantage of the Blight and invade a shattered and prostate Ferelden.

Not trying to defend Loghains character flaws, of which there are many (and in my eyes, unforgivable), but I've not seen any proof that the Orlesians were harmless, and in fact,  there may be circumstantial evidence that they may have been planning something.

Not to mention that Loghain's right - you don't need the Orlesians to defeat the Blight.

[tmp7704]

Obliterati wrote...

Sorry to butt in here, but how do we know Loghain was wrong about the Orlesians? As far as we know, based on available information, the Orleasians ARE preparing to take advantage of the Blight and invade a shattered and prostate Ferelden.

Well, the man himself pretty much says something to the effect he was wrong about it when you speak to him after the Landsmeet. Which is why i mentioned Loghain's failure to gather intelligence to get actual, full picture.

Plus, from the talks surroundings the matter in game it sounded rather like the Orlesian forces on the border were limited and gathering there pretty much because Cailan considered asking them for help in fight with the darkspawn. Which was perhaps unthinkable to Loghain who'd spent years to get the country rid of them... and so it came down to Loghain's personal pride and prejudice vs oath sworn to his king. And the pride won. Who knows, maybe there was some demon in the works...

[tmp7704]

Valmy wrote...

It seemed perfectly clear to him that the King was going to destroy the Army and since he invited the Orlesians to enter Ferelden they would just march in and take over.  Ergo he was SAVING his army and then he planned to unite it under his banner.

Loghain didn't save the army. He let the most of it die when he pulled out his forces, while it was up to this force under his command to flank the darkspawn.

Really, it makes absolutely no sense to argue on one side that Loghain believed darkspawn isn't a serious threat *and* at the same time he'd believe that this darkspawn would be capable of destroying the whole army. Because if such "not serious" threat is capable of such feat, then it's not exactly "not serious", is it?

[Akka le Vil]

Gegenlicht wrote...

Not so. He indirectly disposed of a legitimate but frankly rather inept ruler, acting under the likely justified belief that he could run the country better than Cailan did. It's pretty much said that all good ideas Cailan had came from Loghain anyhow. What follows from this -the poisoning of Maric's last remaining relative, seizing power over the Circle of Magi, getting rid of the Teyrn of Denerim- necessarily follows from his need to cement his rule.

And the point is, if the trouble you cause by replacing a bad ruler is ten times worse than the trouble he would have caused by being the ruler, then you're being counter-productive.
So much for pragmatism, his methods were just plain evil and stupid, NOT "doing what is necessary". My point being, everybody seem to consider any evil act as a proof of "ruthless efficiency", while there was nothing efficient about the mess Loghain made, and the results were going in complete opposition to what he pretended was his goal.

Granted, it seems the story writer followed a need to paint Loghain as a bad guy in spite of his history. However, there exist in the modern-day world countless of examples of people committing atrocities of one kind or another and labelling their actions as doing what was needed. It has nothing to do with trying to be edgy or power-tripping, it is realistic.

And none of this changes the fact that within the game's canon, Loghain remains one of Ferelden's most capable generals and a hero in the eyes of many, for better or worse.

Maybe you've just been very sheltered, or you don't like watching the news or informing yourself of history. I can't tell and I won't assume. But your point of view is very naive.

Actually, history is a hobby of mine. But you simply seem to misunderstand my point. I'm not talking about how leader disguise their action under the pretense of rigtheousness of necessity. I point how people on this forum tend to mix "evil" with "doing what's necessary". Because the latter IS what I would call very naive or childish (hence the sarcasm about "oooh look he slaughtered uselessly plenty of people, he's just sooo cool to be that ruthless, he MUST be some kind of greatly efficient guy !").

"What is necessary" is exactly what it says on the tin : what you NEED to do. Most of the evil actions Loghain did were NOT necessary, and it really looks absurd to see people trying to paint him as a great general being just so manly with his ruthlessness, while all he did ranged from the "you could have obtained the same without having to resort on evil" at the best, to "you actually went completely against your benefits" at worse.
My gripe is that people seem to confuse the "realistic dark" that comes with "there is rarely a perfect solution" with the "emo dark" of "you just NEED to be a bastard or else you'll be confused with those effete do-gooder". Good isn't inherently inefficient and bad isn't inherently efficient. Efficiency is Amoral, not IMmoral

[Sarethus]

Valmy wrote...

Odd I thought he was trying to save his army and unite the country under his banner.  Didn't you understand what he thought was going on?

It seemed perfectly clear to him that the King was going to destroy the Army and since he invited the Orlesians to enter Ferelden they would just march in and take over.  Ergo he was SAVING his army and then he planned to unite it under his banner.  Well that last part didn't work out so well.  The Banns are very hard to control even in the best of times.

Loghain was the one who made the battle plan for Ostagar and it was a good enough plan that even Duncan said it would work. So the King was not going to destroy the army but rather Loghain did when he didn't uphold his part of the battle plan that he himself drew. 

RunCDFirst wrote...

Not to mention that Loghain's right - you don't need the Orlesians to defeat the Blight.

Loghain's right after allowing the major part of Fereldan to be taken over by the blight. If he had continued fighting at Ostagar then the blight could have been contained there without having quite a bit of the country that he's fighting to protect destroyed.

[Valmy]

tmp7704 wrote...
Loghain didn't save the army. He let the most of it die when he pulled out his forces, while it was up to this force under his command to flank the darkspawn.

Really, it makes absolutely no sense to argue on one side that Loghain believed darkspawn isn't a serious threat *and* at the same time he'd believe that this darkspawn would be capable of destroying the whole army. Because if such "not serious" threat is capable of such feat, then it's not exactly "not serious", is it?

I said he saved HIS army.  If he believed the army would die anyway there you are.


I do not recall him believing the threat of the darkspawn was not serious,  Do you want to show me where I argued that?  In fact the big problem for him was that King Cailan was NOT taking it seriously and recklessly endangering the army.  His retreat would give Ferelden a fighting chance under his leadership to not only defeat the Darkspawn but also maintain her independence from Orlesian plots...which he probably suspected was primarily behind the situation at Ostagar to begin with.

[Akka le Vil]

Obliterati wrote...

Sorry to butt in here, but how do we know Loghain was wrong about the Orlesians? As far as we know, based on available information, the Orleasians ARE preparing to take advantage of the Blight and invade a shattered and prostate Ferelden.

Not trying to defend Loghains character flaws, of which there are many (and in my eyes, unforgivable), but I've not seen any proof that the Orlesians were harmless, and in fact,  there may be circumstantial evidence that they may have been planning something.

The point is : even if he's right, how are his choices of destroying his army and starting a civil war making the country better armed to fight off this supposed invasion in any way ?

What makes Loghain a liability is that EVEN IF YOU GO WITH HIS PARANOID VIEW, he still took decisions that were total failures. That's precisely my point

[Valmy]

Sarethus wrote...
Loghain was the one who made the battle plan for Ostagar and it was a good enough plan that even Duncan said it would work. So the King was not going to destroy the army but rather Loghain did when he didn't uphold his part of the battle plan that he himself drew. 

I am aware of that.  If you believe the battle could have been won then that colors your perspective a bit.  I mean the Darkspawn were pouring up from caves BEHIND the army and had taken the critical tower of Ishal literally right when the battle started.  Clearly alot of things happened Loghain and Duncan had not planned for.  Perhaps Loghain did it all in reaction to realizing the battle was going against them.  Of course only David Gaider knows for sure.

The King was rather suicidally reckless deciding to fight in the front lines considering he had no heir and he was the only thing holding the country together even if the battle was winnable.

[RunCDFirst]

Akka le Vil wrote...
My gripe is that people seem to confuse the "realistic dark" that comes with "there is rarely a perfect solution" with the "emo dark" of "you just NEED to be a bastard or else you'll be confused with those effete do-gooder". Good isn't inherently inefficient and bad isn't inherently efficient. Efficiency is Amoral, not IMmoral

I think you've really hit on something. There are too many 'perfect' solutions in Dragon Age. I just finished Redcliffe with the warm, fuzzy ending where everyone lives and it really cheapens the tough choice that was early presented. In my opinion, the warm fuzzy ending should be extremely situation and more difficult to achieve so that the choice between the mother and child is still a tough decision to make. 
But I understand that most people don't want this sort of darkness in their fantasy anyway. I feel that the Anvil of the Void is perhaps the best questline and leaves the player with a much more difficult choice than anything else presented in the game. 

[Valmy]

Akka le Vil wrote...
The point is : even if he's right, how are his choices of destroying his army and starting a civil war making the country better armed to fight off this supposed invasion in any way ?

What makes Loghain a liability is that EVEN IF YOU GO WITH HIS PARANOID VIEW, he still took decisions that were total failures. That's precisely my point

Again if you think the Blight would have been defeated at Ostagar without Loghain retreating then you are correct.  I am not sure that is the case.  I am not sure exactly what made Loghain take the decision he did in that case I just understand why he might have thought it was the right thing to do.

[tmp7704]

Valmy wrote...

I said he saved HIS army.  If he believed the army would die anyway there you are.

Except it was this very act of "saving his army" that sealed the fate of other forces. If he did not believe the flank from his forces would be enough to defeat the darkspawn there, he should've said so. The introductions at Ostagar make it pretty clear Cailan is leaving all tactics to his trusted general. What sort of "military genius" simply throws away the bulk of his troops? Because it's what he did.

As for his belief about the severity of darkspawn threat, this is mostly brought up as justification for his actions -- "oh poor Loghain believed it's not true Blight and that he could defeat it with the forces he pulled out from the Ostagar fight, it is not his fault he was wrong". If he did believe the darkspawn threat was actually severe then his actions make even less sense.

[RunCDFirst]

Valmy wrote...
Again if you think the Blight would have been defeated at Ostagar without Loghain retreating then you are correct.  I am not sure that is the case.  I am not sure exactly what made Loghain take the decision he did in that case I just understand why he might have thought it was the right thing to do.

Well, we know with the power of hindsight that the Blight would not have ended at Ostagar since the archdemon was still underground amassing the bulk of its forces. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Herr Uhl wrote...

The fault is that he sees the grey wardens as something honorable, I see them as something that should kill archdemons, not walk around in shining armor. Got a Cailan vibe from Alastair.

Personal problems and glory are second to stopping the blight.

Which is what the Grey Wardens and Cailan were trying to do before Loghain stabed them in the back. Seriously. He sabotaged one great oppotrunity to cut down the Blight early and then continously opposed the player in his efforts to end the Blight. He pushed the land in to civila war during a Blight.

Frankly, recruiting someone who practicly doomed the land you were constantly trying to save strikes me as idiotic. No skills of his are worth it.

[Obliterati]

Valmy wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...
The point is : even if he's right, how are his choices of destroying his army and starting a civil war making the country better armed to fight off this supposed invasion in any way ?

What makes Loghain a liability is that EVEN IF YOU GO WITH HIS PARANOID VIEW, he still took decisions that were total failures. That's precisely my point

Again if you think the Blight would have been defeated at Ostagar without Loghain retreating then you are correct.  I am not sure that is the case.  I am not sure exactly what made Loghain take the decision he did in that case I just understand why he might have thought it was the right thing to do.

This is what I was getting at. Loghain seemed to think that the battle was going to be a fiasco, whether he and his troops were involved or not. He bailed on the King in order to save his troops instead of wasting them uselessly.

And who knows, he may have been right. Obviously, his underhandedness eliminates any sympathy I would have for him, but outside of the context of morality, we don't know that Loghain made a bad choice at Ostagar.

As far as the civil war goes, Arl Eamon himself, even after being poisioned, said he would join with Loghain to unite the country if there was no other way. Loghain was obviously counting on this. Of course, without a Warden you can't defeat the Blight no matter what you do, but Loghain didn't know this, no one did. Who can say what he would have done if he had this information.

I should point out that I've executed his ass in every game I've played. But still, I can see where he's coming from, and I'm not sure he was entirely wrong.

[cooldevo]

Akka le Vil wrote...
The point is : even if he's right, how are his choices of destroying his army and starting a civil war making the country better armed to fight off this supposed invasion in any way ?

What makes Loghain a liability is that EVEN IF YOU GO WITH HIS PARANOID VIEW, he still took decisions that were total failures. That's precisely my point

I never said I accepted the decision Loghain made.  He had his reasons.  Just like I had my reasons in the origins stories and should have been executed in many of them.  Duncan stepped in because he saw something in me.  Don' you think the Arl's family wanted revenge when I killed the son to stop him from raping the elven girls?  Did they feel short changed?  Absolutely.  What about all the other stories?

The greater good in stopping the Blight is all that matters to a Warden.  Duncan took my PC in, regardless of what my past and my previous decisions were because he was serving the greater "good" of stopping the Blight.  And he saw the potential I had in doing that.  I took the same philosophy and transferred it to myself and Loghain.  Sure he made mistakes, but Duncan still took me in and I redeemed myself, why not Loghain?  At least he was willing to own up to them.  Alistair couln't get past his petty vengance to server the greater Warden "good."  What a dishonor to Duncan, all that he stood for, and all he had done.  Alistair himself even comments throughought camp conversations about how he was not even a superb Paladin, or even while in the Chantry.  Duncan allowed Alistair to even redeem himself from that.  Yet he could not do the same thing in return.

And again, in Ostagar no one thought it was a Blight.  Several conversations indicate that, including the one with the King.  If it was a Blight, where was the archdemon?  Nowhere to be seen.

[Valmy]

tmp7704 wrote...
Except it was this very act of "saving his army" that sealed the fate of other forces. If he did not believe the flank from his forces would be enough to defeat the darkspawn there, he should've said so. The introductions at Ostagar make it pretty clear Cailan is leaving all tactics to his trusted general. What sort of "military genius" simply throws away the bulk of his troops? Because it's what he did.

As for his belief about the severity of darkspawn threat, this is mostly brought up as justification for his actions -- "oh poor Loghain believed it's not true Blight and that he could defeat it with the forces he pulled out from the Ostagar fight, it is not his fault he was wrong". If he did believe the darkspawn threat was actually severe then his actions make even less sense.

Um...of course it being brought up as justiciation for his actions.  We are talking about the justification for his actions.

The Darkspawn were pouring up from underground behind the army and took the critical Tower of Ishal immediately after the battle started.  That was clearly unexpected.  Loghain did not want to fight at Ostagar and certainly did not want to rely on the Grey Wardens who he did not trust.  Further this was not the first battle at Ostagar and they had been victorious previously ergo he did not retreat when the day looked like it belonged to Ferelden.  Loghain might have seen that the army was now surprised, surrounded, and likely to be destroyed by a much larger army than the King or he suspected and made the decision to abandon the field on the spot to continue the fight.  He might have suspected treachery on the part of the Grey Wardens and the Orlesians and thus sought to take vengeance out on them afterwards for the situation his King and his country found themselves in.  This also explains why he was going to such extreme lengths later on to build up his forces and desperate to destroy anybody he thought might divide the country like perhals Arl Eamon (though it is difficult sometimes to know what Loghain personally did and what the people taking advantage of his paranoia were doing without his knowledge).

There you go.

Modifié par Valmy, 25 novembre 2009 - 07:33 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

I really never saw anything special in Loghain that was worth saving him. He's a good tactician, so what? He's not the only tactician worth a damn. Ferelden has quite a few generals and commadners. Seasoned warrior? You got plenty of those, and probably younger and in better shape than Loghain.

You don't need Loghain really - there's nothing so critical that he brings to the table that someone else can't do.
There's no "greater good" in allowing him to live. That's just bull****.

Loghain was a complete and utter idiot and there's no way in hell I'm replacing someone as loyal and dedicated as Allistair with someone who's spits on everything the Grey Wardens stand for and their good name.
Heck, I'd kill him from the sole purpose of removing him from the gene pool, since the moron deservs a Darwin Award if he kills himself.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 25 novembre 2009 - 07:36 .

[Axterix]

tmp7704 wrote...

Except it was this very act of "saving his army" that sealed the fate of other forces. If he did not believe the flank from his forces would be enough to defeat the darkspawn there, he should've said so. The introductions at Ostagar make it pretty clear Cailan is leaving all tactics to his trusted general. What sort of "military genius" simply throws away the bulk of his troops? Because it's what he did.

It is possible that he believed his army would be enough to defeat the darkspawn, but that losses would be sufficiently high so as to encourage the Orlesian military, invited by the king to march into Ferelden to help with the Blight, to stick around and conquer the land again.

Instead, better to ignore the false blight for a bit, keep the borders protected, build up the military, and then smash the darkspawn while still having enough forces guarding the border to keep the Orlesians out.  Assuming the blight wasn't a false one and dispersed on its own.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe he allowed the tower to be taken.  No signal at all, plan failed without it, would have been a much easier way to justify the retreat...after the bait forces had fallen.

[Valmy]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I really never saw anything special in Loghain that was worth saving him. He's a good tactician, so what? He's not the only tactician worth a damn. Ferelden has quite a few generals and commadners. Seasoned warrior? You got plenty of those, and probably younger and in better shape than Loghain.

You don't need Loghain really - there's nothing so critical that he brings to the table that someone else can't do.
There's no "greater good" in allowing him to live. That's just bull****.

There is a greater good for me personally.  He sacrificed himself so Alistair and I could live.  The other options were much worse in my book.  But then I knew nothing about that when I decided to take him, My character was generally merciful guy who would give most of his enemies a second chance if they wanted it.

[Akka le Vil]

Valmy wrote...

I am aware of that.  If you believe the battle could have been won then that colors your perspective a bit.  I mean the Darkspawn were pouring up from caves BEHIND the army and had taken the critical tower of Ishal literally right when the battle started.  Clearly alot of things happened Loghain and Duncan had not planned for.  Perhaps Loghain did it all in reaction to realizing the battle was going against them.  Of course only David Gaider knows for sure.

This makes absolutely no sense : Loghain didn't KNEW that the tower had been taken, and he reacted at the signal that was supposed to say "charge forward".
You're completely bending the fact in a desperate attempt to be apologetic to Loghain.

You're also often contradicting yourself, using the excuse that Loghain saw the darkspawn as no serious threat to justify how he fought the Warden during a Darkspawn invasion, and then flip-flopping all around and trying to justify his retreat as "the darkspawn were just not beatable".
A little confused, aren't we ?

[Valmy]

Axterix wrote...
Personally, I'm inclined to believe he allowed the tower to be taken.  No signal at all, plan failed without it, would have been a much easier way to justify the retreat...after the bait forces had fallen.

I thought of that to but I don't think so.  Why would he wait until the beacon was lit before making the decision to retreat then?  Wouldn't it have made sense for him to just go then wait around for a beacon he did not expect to see?  Also how did he ensure the Darkspawn would take the tower?  They cannot really be negotiated with.