105 réponses à ce sujet

[Vormaerin]

Harcken wrote...

The problem isn't that logically, a trial by combat makes sense, or occurs historically; but that all that time you spent gathering evidence is for naught. I might have been semi fine with the landsmeet if it was like NWN2 and the trial was around 3-5 minutes of dialogue, where you got to present your evidence, piece by piece, and people actually came out for testimony, and were dealt questions.

Yes, the Landsmeet itself was disappointing.  It was a little too easy to get the evidence (you are railroaded right into it by Anora) and then its irrelevant how the Landsmeet actually votes, because its still decided by combat.   Which was not, contrary to popular misconception, actually used to decide much of anything outside of fables.   Its main use was in the equivalent of small claims court or when there was no evidence to determine the outcome.  It certainly wasn't used to overturn the legal judgement of a council of lords...

[SeanMurphy2]

I think if you lose the vote in the Landsmeet. There could be an option to pledge your support to Loghain in order to end the Blight. And Loghain ends the game as King.

If you win the vote in the Landsmeet. It should not always end in a duel. You could discuss an agreement with him. Like implementing anti-Orlais policies in exchange for him being less of a tyrant and helping stop the Blight.

Modifié par SeanMurphy2, 12 décembre 2009 - 06:17 .

[Original182]

I don't understand how the voting works.



If I have Anora against me, eventhough I win 6 votes out of 8, I lose.

I have to win 7 out of 8 votes in order to win the Landsmeet. Anything less means a loss.

[AtreiyaN7]

Really? I've had my coercion maxed out (that and high cunning), So far, I've been able to win everyone over to my side (except for that one annoying fellow). I just went with the least emotional/most logical persuade option(s) and attacked with questions involving incidents with eyewitnesses (like the Arl's son who was being tortured or mentioning Jowan's involvement in poisoning Arl Eamon), etc. Admittedly, my first attempts went miserably until I realized what worked best. Eh, I found it enjoyable enough myself. It was always going to come down to a fight with Loghain anyway - he's not the sort to just give up.

[Imrahil_]

The Landsmeet was a big disappointment for me. Even if I outnumber Loghain in votes & win outright, we still duel for who rules. Which means... everyone in the Landsmeet is OK with being on the right side, except if their Champion loses a fight? Really? That matters?



I mean, historically, did that ever happen? Even remotely? As in... they all vote, & decide in my favor, but if some congadouche beats me in hand-to-hand they'd be like "oh, ok, I guess I was wrong. me & my Arl will now support dude with big sword. 'Cause he won a fight, naturally."



Seriously? What was the point of me getting nobles on my side if we just have to one-on-one it out to decide no matter what? They don't care that Loghain was selling elven slaves & torturing their sons if he beats me in a fight? But if I kick his butt, all's well & good?



Makes no sense.

[sleepy__head]

Imrahil_ wrote...

The Landsmeet was a big disappointment for me. Even if I outnumber Loghain in votes & win outright, we still duel for who rules. Which means... everyone in the Landsmeet is OK with being on the right side, except if their Champion loses a fight? Really? That matters?
.

THIS.

It is utterly idiotic.  Whats the point of even voting if the loser can just challenge to an one-on-one duel?   It think it is scripting failure of the story here.

And Loghain just becomes another Amon Jero.  Been there, done that already.

[Vormaerin]

Well, we don't know that they accept Loghain's leadership after he kills you in the duel. Its entirely possible it goes to civil war again. The point of the duel is to forestall a fight against Loghain's supporters...who exist even if he loses the support of the Landsmeet, after all.



There aren't many examples of a parliament picking a king in this way, so naturally there are even fewer examples of it being challenged to a duel. Generally its civil war if one side doesn't submit (and knowing that they'll be executed like seems to be the practice in Ferelden and Orzammar, I imagine they don't submit).

[phordicus]

disappointing to say the least, especially since my choice from the first time i ever played the game was to take loghain out asap. the old "you can't travel here yet" plot device intercedes, however. here i am thinking the Landsmeet would be convoluted and machiavellian and all i get is milquetoast nobles and a Might Makes Right duel for the throne.

[fkirenicus]

Vormaerin wrote...

Err, you are complaining that they do not properly chastise Loghain if *you* launch an illegal attack on him and he brings in his guards to help him?

At no point was he trying to slaughter the whole Landsmeet. He was defending himself against your idiotic assault.

As long as Loghain refuses to step down even though he's outnumbered x to the single one that always sides with him (Ceorlic) it's hardly an "illegal" attack, no? I have every single soul in that chamber on my side (at least that's the impression the cutscene after Anora's speech gives me!) except Ceorlic.

Loghain calls everyone a traitor, and so I decide that a "preemptive strike" is in order - because I see that he's not going to step down; he'll most likely throw in his guards at one point or another anyway.
I'm not saying this "preemptive strike" is justified (is such an act ever? But we are GREY wardens, aren't we....? Have we been "just" in the entire game so far?), but anyway my character feels that Loghain will try to pull a coup anyway at that point - so she simply strikes before he does!

And yes, Loghain was attacking both Eamon and Alfstanna as well. That he attacks Eamon I can understand story-wise, but by attacking Alfstanna as well I would say that he was willing to kill the entire Landsmeet rather than accept that he had lost the voting.

Loghain is hardly a threat to anyone after all his goons are dead and he's all by himself (AND at health 1 or something!), so why do the nobles of Ferelden risk everything that session has won them by pitting the Grey Warden against Loghain? 
It's not logical, and it goes against every definition of "common sense".

My point is that the outcome (either you kill him yourself/have him killed or Riordan comes running in panting "Wait! There's another option!" as he does anyway) still could be applied.
It's having a duel at that point that is utterly pointless, because Loghain has lost everything anyway. My mage simply shaked her head at the Ferelden nobles and beat Loghain in that single combat after about 30 seconds so it's no big deal.

But having a duel against him at that point is utterly absurd, it goes against all that is common sense, and makes me wonder if all the nobles of Ferelden in fact are somewhat "touched" in their heads. Perhaps decades of inbreeding has taken its toll on them? That was also quite common in medieval society, you know...

Modifié par fkirenicus, 12 décembre 2009 - 09:52 .

[menasure]

i hate it when i am presumed to support a side i have no sympathy for, other than that the whole landsmeet is obviously a staged farce where Loghain is at a clear advantage.
you have no clue how many nobles are really supporting you because presumably they're just not all there and the spokesmen have different numbers of nobles under them... or that is what you read in some explanations but it is not clear at all at the landsmeet itself. so you end up with a seemingly majority ... to have Loghain cry out that he's won :S
you get some surrealistic fight then involving all parties where you can most of the time just stay back if you want ... unless you want to decide to end the killing spree faster. then the chantry will intervene to save Loghain (while in reality the whole room got already slaughtered, including every noble) but won't intervene to save you should you loose ... because that's not blood shed????.
and if you happen to loose the duel then it's game over ... or you have to reload and see the whole surrealistic killing spree again ... terrible design all together.
so then you go to the endgame where suddenly every darkspawn you had so much trouble with drops like a fly. you're suddenly not with your party anymore but they're allies for some reason and i often had no clue on where to go so i ended up looking for several minutes for my companions and the action in a city which was supposed to be overrun by darkspawn ... surrealism again. the difficulty of the fights often make you wonder why you needed allies and at the very end 'someone' slays the dragon in cinematic gameplay detail ... only to have you do the same thing again during the end movie with a sword which you might not have used for the entire game. lol.

Modifié par menasure, 12 décembre 2009 - 09:46 .

[Mnemnosyne]

I've always felt it was silly that only one guy votes for Loghain no matter what, actually. A lot of the arguments here make sense if it wasn't for the fact that it appears that almost everyone at the Landsmeet is against Loghain. Or at least if it was made clear that Ceorlic speaks for more than just himself. Surely there are more than seven or so nobles in Ferelden, after all. The problem is we're not told that.

Now, the idea of having an honorable duel to settle it in order to prevent his supporters from continuing to fight the civil war after Loghain's death makes sense, if it's made clear that there are still a reasonable number of supporters. But it looks like there's just one guy who sticks up for Loghain no matter what. Now maybe he's supposed to represent a considerable number of nobles, because functionally speaking it sounds like the bannorn is composed of dozens if not over a hundred or more different banns, but then it should be made clear that this is so, and that there's a sizeable number of people who could still cause trouble if they view Loghain to have been unjustly defeated.

If it was made clear that Ceorlic is not a lone dissenting voice but a representative of a significant voting block, such that even if I win the support of everyone else in the room, it's clear that my victory is far from unanimous, I would fully understand the need for the duel.

[Korva]

I found this to be a big disappointment, too. It's a complete railroad trip that totally ignores your efforts, or lack thereof, which makes it a farce. And that is extremely bad form IMO.

What is the point in gathering evidence and support? Yeah, "roleplaying". But it is extremely unsatisfying because it has no effect. It's another case of the "good" person who goes out of their way to help others getting screwed because the selfish jerkface who murders, extorts and plunders all he can gets the exact same outcome with zero negative consequences. Player effort has to matter. Player conduct has to matter, too.

And the voting makes no sense. The first time I went in, I had all but two of the nobles on my side. That was what, a 5:2 outcome? So I was happy and thought it was over, and honestly couldn't understand why it means a loss. That was extremely unsatisfying and honestly ticked me off with the game. Loghain is a bad guy. He's committed countless crimes including desertation and regicide-by-proxy. I have the majority of voters on my side. Why the hell does that mean I lose and and am forced to act as much as a petty tyrant as Loghain is by refusing to accept what is an incomprehensible but still legally binding decision?

I tried again, changed one dialog option and for no discernible reason that got me a 6:1 win. So not only can't you present all your evidence, you have to somehow divine what seems to be the only viable dialog sequence to avoid getting trashed. Wonderful.

Modifié par Korva, 13 décembre 2009 - 12:50 .

[Vormaerin]

Koyasha wrote...

I've always felt it was silly that only one guy votes for Loghain no matter what, actually. A lot of the arguments here make sense if it wasn't for the fact that it appears that almost everyone at the Landsmeet is against Loghain. Or at least if it was made clear that Ceorlic speaks for more than just himself. Surely there are more than seven or so nobles in Ferelden, after all. The problem is we're not told that.

Its entirely possible to actually lose the Landsmeet, though the railroad at that part of the storyline does make it fairly difficult.  You get Alfstanna and the tortured guy's father on your side more or less by default (You could screw that up, but its unlikely).    The rest is up in the air and does depend on your decisions with Anora and in the conversation at the Landsmeet.

Wulf votes for Loghain if you choose one of the dialogue options other than "Its the blight, not Orlais".    One of the other guys votes for Loghain if you don't do the assassins' questline and avenge the kidnapping of his son.    If you don't get Anora's support, several others are likely to vote against you.  

There are subtleties to the Landsmeet, but they are a little too subtle.   You can't see the fine gradations even in retrospect.   The fact that if you use your dialogue options to attack Loghain on his loyalty to Cailan and treachery instead of on his slaving of elves, imprisonment of nobles, and obsession with orlais instead of the Blight, you will lose votes.

[Korva]

Yes, I know bringing up Ostagar isn't a good idea, I didn't do that even before I learned Anora advises against it. So mentioning the Blight as the biggest threat got me Wulf's vote. I'd helped Alfstanna's brother and the other noble's son. I also did the Crow quests. Since my character values honesty she refused to lie to Anora about supporting her claim to the throne. And the rapist bastard from the city elf origin got gutted in Howe's dungeon (some metagaming on my part but there's no way I'd let him live).

With this setup, my first attempt was a loss that made no sense because the majority of the voters spoke for me. I reloaded and discovered that mentioning Eamon's poisoning at the hands of a maleficar sent by Loghain was what cost me the vote. I thought mentioning that would sway more people than mentioning Loghain sold elves into slavery -- let's face it, most of those nobles in the Landsmeet probably treat "their" elves like cattle, too, and don't give a dead rat's arse about the Alienage or elven suffering. The only way I could win the Landsmeet with my setup was mention the Blight, mention the slavery deal, mention Howe's tortures.

All in all, the combination of being unable to say more than 3 piddly lines while Loghain rants and raves at will, being unable to present all my evidence, having to guess/reload to find out which option "works", having the numerical advantage and STILL losing for no discernible reason, having the duel forced on me even when I DID win the vote after a reload, and realizing that all my efforts and do-gooding amount to nothing because someone who skips all that or even causes the victims more pain will get the exact same without suffering any consequences -- all that made the Landsmeet a railroaded farce which left a bad taste in my mouth.

Modifié par Korva, 13 décembre 2009 - 12:52 .

[The Capital Gaultier]

This is a very fractious society. Saying that the duel doesn't push your suspension of disbelief is absurd, but it's not beyond reason. Personally, I get the impression that the void left by the departure of an authoritative Orlesian rulership has made certain dire remedies acceptable to the noble families, or at least that the duel resembles an order imposed independent of outside influence (as Orlesian interlopers still seeking to influence Ferelden's politics).

Modifié par The Capital Gaultier, 13 décembre 2009 - 12:50 .

[T0paze]

Basically, you have 4 equally strong points:

1. Telling that the Blight is a real problem, not Orlais. With good persuasion skills, that will win you Arl Wulf.

2. Telling about slavery in Ferelden. There's a difference between attitudes to certain races and attitudes to slavery in general. Those arls may care little about elves, but the very notion of slavery in Ferelden may be anathema to them. This is completely understandable, actually.

3. Mentioning that Loghain sent a blood mage to poison Arl Eamon. That's a good point, too, and even though you can't actually prove it at the Landsmeet, Loghain is implicated in working with a blood mage, which gets him a nice cold shower carefully administered by the Grand Cleric.

4. Mentioning that Loghain allowed Howe to torture prisoners. It's a very good point, since three of those prisoners were nobles.

You get to use three of these arguments, I think. The one about the Blight only appears in the first conversation round, and you should select it. You can then choose two from the remaining three. It doesn't really matter which ones you choose.

Now, if you don't suport Anora or at least didn't lie to her about your support, you'll need all your evidence (except, maybe, one piece of evidence, but no more than one) to win. That means, you'll have to release everyone from Howe's prison (probably including Vaughan), and then complete theirs quest by meeting their relatives in the tavern. You'll also need to get those letters from the slave trader. If you do so, you're guaranteed to win. If Anora supports you, things can be much easier.

Modifié par T0paze, 13 décembre 2009 - 01:35 .

[felix4200]

I found this to be pretty logical:



Keep to the points that are proven, slavery, blight and the torture.



Do not mention Ostagar. Nothing has been proven, noone have seen, it too bad.

Mentioning it makes it seem that all you got is groundless acusations, and you are speaking against a hero after all.



If you get little support at the landsmeet, you will be forced to fight.

If you get much support at the landsmeet, Loghain will realise it beforehand and call for your execution, after which a battle ensues.

If you get nearly all support at the landsmeet Loghain will realise he has lost, and try to enforce a duel. (Which he can, again because he is a well-known hero,and you are the unknown) If you attack at this point, you show yourself to be dishonerable, and you ignore the wish of the landsmeet, which is why they do not support you anymore in this case than they did before you attacked.



A battle at the landsmeet is of course not productive. Therefore you will eventually be forced to stop the bloodbath, and settle it by a far less bloddy duel.



With this said a duel after something like this always feel forced, however I don't think there's anything wrong with the story or writing here.

[slackbheep]

I also found the forced duel to be frustrating. I understand it in certain circumstances but if I just finished turning the Landsmeet against him, and he's decided to deal with this 'wrinkle' by killing them... I find it hard to believe they think a duel makes sense. Even crazier is recruiting him after this.

[Asylumer]

Kinaori wrote...


I was rather puzzled on a playthrough I had where it was 5-2 in my favor (or possibly 4-2) and they said that the Landsmeet had decided against me >_<  I was thoroughly confused.

You and me both.

I thought Loghain failed to learn addition or something. 4 being greater than 2 and all...

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

Kinaori wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

I have actually never had him start the fight when the majority of the landsmeet decided against him. Perhaps I chose the correct dialog options for it? I have had him try to execute Eamon and myself, which led to a big battle royal, and then the duel, but the Landsmeet found for him on that playthrough. I have had him call for the duel, and leave the terms up to the Landsmeet, but not the big battle, just the one on one, and when I kicked his king betraying butt, he said he was wrong about me, and that he had thought I was like Cailin, trying to play at war.

I was rather puzzled on a playthrough I had where it was 5-2 in my favor (or possibly 4-2) and they said that the Landsmeet had decided against me >_<  I was thoroughly confused.

Yeah, it's weird like that... has to be 5/6 majority to actually "win" the Landsmeet.

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

ACK DOUBLE POST

Modifié par AbsolutGrndZer0, 13 décembre 2009 - 04:57 .

[Curlain]

I disliked this to, it also brought up memories of NWN2's OC with the trial, cause you gather the evidence, presuade all these people about Loghain's deeds and gain there support, and then before the Landsmeet you argue your case, but even when you win absolutely out right with there being no doubt in Loghain's guilt and the bannorn's vote is clear, you still have to duel Loghain. You feel, well what was the point of doing all the previous stuff, what your PC does or how they act is made irrelevent with that one action (again just like NWN2 OC,where you will the trial outright, and you fight Lorne just as you would if you lost)

[th3warr1or]

soteria wrote...

HarlequinDream wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

Err, you are complaining that they do not properly chastise Loghain if *you* launch an illegal attack on him and he brings in his guards to help him?

At no point was he trying to slaughter the whole Landsmeet. He was defending himself against your idiotic assault.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

How was it an idiotic assault?  The Landsmeet came out in more or less a tie, and he declared himself a victor and called for my execution.  That's not an illegal attack, that's self-defense.

This. As someone mentioned, he pulls a Bhelen DESPITE NOT HAVING WON.

HarlequinDream wrote...

soteria wrote...

HarlequinDream wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

Err,
you are complaining that they do not properly chastise Loghain if *you*
launch an illegal attack on him and he brings in his guards to help him?

At no point was he trying to slaughter the whole Landsmeet. He was defending himself against your idiotic assault.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

How
was it an idiotic assault?  The Landsmeet came out in more or less a
tie, and he declared himself a victor and called for my execution. 
That's not an illegal attack, that's self-defense.

"More or less a tie" being...? How many votes on either side?

Unless you win 5-2 or more, it's a "loss".

[EricHVela]

Wrong. 4-2 is a win. Then, you can tell Loghain to handle things honorably in a one-on-one duel even though he pitches his fit.