42 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

I always spare Loghain.
Certainly, he has made mistakes, both tactically and morally, but his heart was always; and I do mean always; in the right place. Everything he did, he did for his people and his land.
He is certainly flawed but so are all humans (and elves and dwarves and qunari) and, ultimately, there is absolutely nothing that can be gained from killing him while we stand to gain an experienced military commander and another Grey Warden by sparing him.

[MisterJB]

Faerunner wrote...
Try watching this video at 3:15 to 6:15 and try maintaining that argument.

If he truly believes it's better to live as a slave than die by darkspawn, then why does he refuse Orlesian aid knowing it will save human lives? Why is slavery an unforgivable travesty when it happens to him and his, but a necessary evil when it happens to them? Why is human freedom non-negotiable but elven freedom is? Why does he spit the word "elf/elven" like it's a curse word?

No, he does it because he holds elves to a different (read: lesser) standard than humans.

I see no evidence in the video that he holds up elves to a lesser standard than humans. Rather, it's simply the fact that the elves who were sold were a few dozen while the humans and elves who would be killed by the Darkspawn number in the thousands. It's a matter of numbers, the needs of the many take precedence over the needs of the few.

Have you considered the fact that if Ferelden called for Orlesian aid and was occupied afterward, the elves would be amongst the ones who suffered the most? That by selling a few dozen elves to Tevinter, you could very well assure the freedom and security of all other fereldan elves from both Darkspawn and Orlais, not to mention the humans?

The reason elves were picked is simply because they are the most defenseless social class.

Modifié par MisterJB, 13 août 2013 - 04:43 .

[Merilsell]

MisterJB wrote...
The reason elves were picked is simply because they are the most defenseless social class.

And not worth much in the eyes of most humans, so they were basically easy prey. A fact most of my Wardens do not take kindly and thus, Loghain has always died so far. It is not that I hate him. I found him an compelling, interesting character. Just not one my Wardens were able to trust. At all.

As for Alistair, I always hardening him, no matter if King or Warden ending. I do choose the Warden ending far more often though and still never ran into any problems with him assuming the throne no matter what, when my Warden duells Loghain. Hmm, odd. 

[MisterJB]

EDIT: Ok, I wrote this before you expanded your post so, parts of mine may be obsolete.

You claim that from Loghain's viewpoint, the freedom of humans is non-negotiable while the freedoms of elves is but what has always motivated Loghain was Ferelden and its people which includes the elven population.
Said elven population that would die or be dominated even more easily than their human counterparts if the Darkspawn or Orlais had their way. In the video you linked us to, Loghain specifically mentions the elves still in the Alienage who are vulnerable to the Darkspawn and would be less vulnerable after Tevinter money helped pay for a bigger army.

The fact that elves are the most defenseless of social classes in Thedas is the norm and not something Loghain caused. He took advantage of this but that is not evidence of his action being racially-motivated.

In conclusion, Loghain chose to sacrifice the few; part of the elven population; to save the many; which also included the remaining elven population; from death or occupation.

When we identify more with one group over other, we will react more strongly when sligths are commited against said group; biases are something all humans are vulnerable too; but in this case, it's the City Elf that can be accused of egotism because what s/he claims is that it would be preferible to risk or even sacrifice the entire country against Darkspawn or orlesians than selling some elves to Tevinter.

Modifié par MisterJB, 14 août 2013 - 03:39 .

[MisterJB]

Faerunner wrote...
And if he'd dealt with the darkspawn first rather than letting them swarm the nation unchecked, they would be a non-issue.

Certainly, Loghain made tactical mistakes but that is not evidence of racism from his part.

Then Loghain's argument that it's better to live as a slave than die by darkspawn would hold some water. Since he would literally rather let the nation get eaten alive by darkspawn than to accept help from people he perceives as his former oppressors (never mind that the Grey Wardens aren't) or admit he was wrong to take the regency, then his argument pops like a balloon. He's a self-deluding liar, racist, and hypocrite.

Or perhaps he simply wished to exhaust all of his preferable options before endeavoring towards extreme paths.

I'm certain you can see how selling a few dozen members of your population into slavery thus enabling you to prevent both the slaugther and enslavement of your entire population is preferable to allowing your entire population to be enslaved to prevent its slaugther.

And it's obvious Loghain sees no difference between orlesian grey wardens and orlesians of any other kind. Especially when they are accompanied by orlesian armies.
Hindsight is a great thing and since we actually had a look as to the inside workings of the Grey Wardens, we can call it an unwise move to barr their entrance. But Loghain was neither privy to their secrets nor a seer of the future.
Besides, given the fact some Grey Wardens we've seen; possibly, our Warden included since s/he can request a boon; had ulterior motives for joining the Order, can we really say the orlesian wardens were truly hatching no plot?

And perceived as the least deserving of the freedom that humans like Loghain believe to be an inalienable right.

Why are you assuming racism when poverty is the most likely response? Elves were simply the ones whose disappearance could be most easily covered. Had it been any other social group, Loghain would have sold them just the same.
Honestly, Loghain led an elite group of elven archers during the rebellion. He shows no evidence of any racism beyond that which we all possess in some extent.

Modifié par MisterJB, 14 août 2013 - 03:49 .

[Wulfram]

How expensive are slaves supposed to be if a "few dozen" can pay enough to field a significantly larger army?  Particularly once you take into account the slavers profits and overheads.

Modifié par Wulfram, 14 août 2013 - 05:36 .

[MisterJB]

According to Hayder, each of the slaves Isabela freed was worth a hundred sovereigns each. Even without a deeper knowledge of Ferelden's economy (how much does a day's worth of rations cost, for instance or a standard steel helmet versus the enchanted, lyrium-veined, legendary weapons the Warden buys), we know that is a significantly high ammount.

Which makes me think Hawke was completely in the wrong business. Treasure hunting? Just sell some slaves and you're set up for life. And Danarius totally ripped us off. Fenris was worth a few thousand sovereigns, at least.

Modifié par MisterJB, 14 août 2013 - 08:14 .

[sylvanaerie]

Perspective is such a personal thing. I remember a while back getting into an argument with someone over whether or not Loghain was a traitor. I even went and posted the dictionary descriptive of the word, (several of the definitions fit the character). And his fan was in such denial, he refused to acknowledge the argument.

I've learned to just accept that some people's perspective of the character differs sharply from mine, and there's no budging either side. I don't expect them to change their mind just as i won't change mine.

All i will say about Loghain is he's a very complex character, more than just a cookie cutter villain, and he makes Dragon Age fun for me. He's human, flawed, and much easier to relate to than the darkspawn or the archdemon, which seem almost more a force of nature than villains. I experience the worst let down after the Landsmeet where I get to finally confront him for everything he's done. After that, killing the archdemon is almost an afterthought. To me, Loghain is and will always be the true villain of Origins.

[Corker]

Wulfram wrote...

How expensive are slaves supposed to be if a "few dozen" can pay enough to field a significantly larger army?  Particularly once you take into account the slavers profits and overheads.

As expensive as the plot requires, evidently.  An Antivan elf of seven years can apparently go for 3 sovs to the Crows, because it makes Zevran's backstory sadder; Isabela's ship of refugees was priced by Hader at 100 sovs a head, to justify the need to have her steal a priceless artifact as recompense.  In between, Caladrius asks for... what? 100 sovs for lost profits?  Because 100 sovs is enough that a late-game PC might have it, but it would still be painful to part with,.
 
It's not a bit of worldbuilding that was ever meant to be a load-bearing structure, IMO.

[MisterJB]

Faerunner wrote...
If you want to accept his excuses and rationalizations (and ignore how he created the problems that he uses to try to justify his travesties) then that's your business. I never, ever, ever, ever will, so you're really wasting your time trying to convince me.

I'm not trying to prove to you that you're wrong and I'm right. If you haven't noticed it yet, I like arguing; I debate for the sake of debating, because it's fun. Of course, it takes a certain kind of interlocutor in order for a debate to be pleasant; you're fun argue with regarding elves, you're passionate about them but you don't have a smug sense of superiority that can be felt even through the internet like some people do. I don't debate with you to defeat you, I do it because it's fun, that is all.
If you don't think so and wish to stop arguing, simply stop answering. I assure you I won't assume you've got no counterarguments

Now, altough this may sound contradictory, I'll post my own arguments later.

Modifié par MisterJB, 17 août 2013 - 04:41 .

[Bhryaen]

If you haven't noticed it yet, I like arguing; I debate for the sake of debating, because it's fun.

So... a troll? A contrarian? Reminds me why I could never join a debate club in high school or college: you take sides due to an arbitrary assignment rather than cause-related motivation. Perhaps this is why the arguments presented on behalf of the game's chief nemesis (and other villains and villanous deeds) always sound so idealistic and rehashed.

I've asked that before- was going to open a thread about it- regarding how well a nation's military could be funded through the enslaving of "dozens" of elves- including old men like Valendrian or Pops CE. That and are there really no other of better means of acquiring funds? Really? No asset-siezing or hard taxing of the nobles or Nations all through history have managed massive military campaigns without making citizen sell-offs to other nations a standard government revenue method (though African nations did sell fellow Africans to further their campaigns against rivals, so at least in that case Loghain has an IRL equivalent of sorts), and if Loghain were a truly great leader he may have been able to inspire a great deal of volunteerism- both from soldier-recruits and arms merchants- which would circumvent the costs of fighting the blight. After all, the fight against the Spawnies was a fight to the death.

And the matter is presented with the oversimpicity of "sell some elves, reduce suffering." That formula doesn't match the conditions of DAO at all. That argument- like so much of what spews out of Loghain's rationalization machinery- is mere political spin. What did Loghain need money for? Expensive Antivan assassins to kill off the Wardens he was lying about and murder off or otherwise neutralize opposition to his usurping of the throne. Now there's a cause worth shackles for. Very late in the game even Howe is recognizing it's a blight, but Mr. Compassionate Enslaver is still dismissive. So if it's not a blight, what is he selling elves for?

"But if they're slaves taken away from this dangerous place, they're safe." Good points were made elsewhere about what can happen to elves (or anyone) subject to Tevinter whims, but the other point not mentioned is that not being enslaved also does not necessarily mean dying to darkspawn. Shianni lives after all (unless racists kill her) as do plenty of other elves- perhaps all (except that poor Blackstone Irregular elf who had the misfortune of surviving Loghain's compassionate "purge" only to be drafted as a mercenary). Our Warden arrives just as the Spawnie general arrives at the gates of the Alienage, and my Wardens always stoically tell the elves to stay back and leave it to them. ("No way you're stealing my kill XP!") In any case I'd rather take my chances at fighting and winning than being given to well-known elf-sacrificers. Not to mention that if- like casteless dwarves- Alienage elves are prevented from arming themselves against the blight and are dragged off north as slaves instead, there are then that many fewer soldiers to fight the Spawnies... And then more the likelihood of a Spawnie victory that ultimately ends up overwhelming Tevinter as well, "saved" Alienage elf slaves and all. But don't worry: the Tevinters will sell their slaves to Free Marches buyers to make gold to fight the Spawnies with... It's a winning strategy from a master strategist...

Faerunner is very right though about the hypocrisy of condoning one supposedly-profitable slavery while opposing slavery "in principle" when it applies to his own kind (which she's had to make repeatedly to get it addressed). But again the formula of "enslaving a few (or dozens- whichever) vs becoming slaves to Orlay" is oversimplistic. It presupposes 1. Orlay is only interested in opportunistically using the blight as a means of retaking Ferelden. Not to say Orlesian interests are any more compassionate than Loghain's, but they might just actually be concerned about the blight spilling into Orlay just to the west if Ferelden is overrun. Cailan's death didn't escape their notice, so concern might arise. 2. Even if Orlesians did intend to occupy Ferelden again after defeating the blight, this doesn't ensure Fereldens would just stand and take it- certainly not with weapons in hand having just fought valiantly against the blight and won. And they could give the Orlesians a black eye they'll not soon forget. 3. It's the leaders of Orlay who wanted Ferelden under occupation, not the soldiers, so after fighting and dying together on the battlefield for the defense of all Thedas, it's not guaranteed you'll get loyalty if you order a bloody betrayal- and mutiny would be ugly for treacherous Orlesian nobles thinking to command their rebellious troops fatigued from war. (This has been said to have been the reason the US didn't invade the USSR at the end of WW2- US leaders actively planning it, but the troops deemed incapable, demanding to be sent home.) Plus Cailan's correspondence w the Orlesian Queen indicated (may have been false, but still) interest in a more meaningful peace between the two nations. And more things come to mind, but the main thing is that "Don't trust Orlay!" as an "argument" comes across more as another example of Loghain's political spin than as a wise entreaty to consider the big, bad Orlesian threat a credible one.

This is not to say that Mr. No Rationalization Is Too Lame for Me did not present persuasive arguments in defense of his actions (even after getting his arse whupped). His Landsmeet speeches (which no one attempts to interrupt at the time, alas) are very well-written, but effectiveness at political spin is different from effectiveness at leadership, and the ability to parrot the phraseology of political spin does not demonstrate the ability to critically assess it.

This sort of "argument" is the most loathsome to me:

Mister JB wrote...
Certainly, he has made mistakes, tactically and morally, but his heart was always; and I mean always; in the right place. Everything he did, was for his people and his land.

And it's not just loathsome for the overuse of commas and misuse of semicolons or the blatant excusing of enslaving other people or taking other people's land, as Faerunner might point out. The naivete itself is staggeringly dumbfounding. Enslaving elves or murdering Wardens or torturing those who could expose one's plots... These are not an "oops." One doesn't accede to such actions in the same way that one might accidentally turn down the wrong road en route to a destination or forget a dental appointment. Villainy disqualifies Loghain from the Misunderstood Hero Award. And when someone's reaction to having their misdeeds pointed out to them is to contrive political spin to rationalize it (and you know he'd have executed your Warden and all your companions and lost the world to darkspawn if his spin had prevailed), this indicates only depravity and deceptiveness, not a "heart; in the, right; place." Such a phrase is not an evidence-based assertion anyway. Defending him on such grounds reminds me of those women- and they inevitably come out of the woodwork at such times- who propose marriage to Jeffrey Dahmer types once they've been brought to justice and are in the spotlight. "But you don't know him like I know him! Inside he's a deep and complex man who just went a little bad, and I know (inexplicably) that he really meant well. We all go a li'l bad sometimes, right?" "Yeah, I slaughtered a busload of people the other day on a whim, and I'm a good guy, so I can identify..." One has to wonder at such times whether they genuinely are so deluded that they believe their own hype and would marry Dahmer or if it has something to do with simply liking to make public propositions contrary to the prevailing sensibility- or the reactions they get from doing so. Besides, is that what it takes to get instant marriage propositions? Maybe I need to rethink my approach... (I know I'm plagiarizing Bill Hicks, but still...)

[MisterJB]

[quote]Bhryaen wrote...
So... a troll? A contrarian? Reminds me why I could never join a debate club in high school or college: you take sides due to an arbitrary assignment rather than cause-related motivation.[/quote]
Hardly. The sides I choose stem from what is presented in the game in conjuction with my personal beliefs as occurs with everyone else.
Enjoying a debate doesn't exclude one's belief in the topic being debated.

[quote]Perhaps this is why the arguments presented on behalf of the game's chief nemesis (and other villains and villanous deeds) always sound so idealistic and rehashed.[/quote]
I find it ironic that someone who uses arguments such as "slavery is not as easily forgivable as going down the wrong road" would accuse someone else of using overly idealistic arguments.

[quote]I've asked that before- was going to open a thread about it- regarding how well a nation's military could be funded through the enslaving of "dozens" of elves- including old men like Valendrian or Pops CE. [/quote]
According to a slaver encountered in Dragon Age 2, each slave Isabela freed was worth one hundred sovereigns.
Given that even mythical, enchanted blades of legends that the Warden can purchase tend to cost 12 sovereigns at most, I can see how one hundred sovereigns per slave could help field an army.

[quote]That and are there really no other of better means of acquiring funds? Really? No asset-siezing or hard taxing of the nobles or Nations all through history have managed massive military campaigns without making citizen sell-offs to other nations a standard government revenue method[/quote]
Taxing the nobles in rebellion against you is hardly effective. Their assets were, in all likelihood, used by the crown once they were defeated but Loghain required an army to defeat them in the first place.
Not to mention that there is no reason to assume that Loghain looked upon slavery as his first resort; in fact, if questioned about it prior to the Landsmeet, Ser Cauthrien makes it plainly obvious he only agreed upon it after Eamon had been restored to health.

[quote]And the matter is presented with the oversimpicity of "sell some elves, reduce suffering." That formula doesn't match the conditions of DAO at all.[/quote]
Sell some elves, earn coin, use coin to field soldiers, soldiers used to either end civil war through the defeat of the opposition or kill darkspawn.
Dead Darkspawn = Win. End of civil war leads to united ferelden which leads to dead darkspawn which brings us back to "Win".

[quote]What did Loghain need money for?[/quote]
Soldier's salary; arms and armor; daily rations, all those essentials an army can't survive without.

[quote]Expensive Antivan assassins to kill off the Wardens he was lying about[/quote]
Witnesses of his strategical retreat at Ostagar whose testimony could and did indeed help rally opposition against Loghain. Opposition that would take advantage of the fact most people would be unable to accept that abandoning Cailan was the only strategically sound move.
Usually, in war, we kill our enemies. Of course, we know Grey Wardens are needed to end a Blight but Loghain was not privy to that secret.

[quote]and murder off or otherwise neutralize opposition to his usurping of the throne.[/quote]
Loghain never usurped the throne. Had had every intention of giving it back to Anora once Ferelden was secured.

[quote]Now there's a cause worth shackles for. [/quote]
From Loghain's viewpoint, a small percentange of fereldans were being sold so that all of Ferelden could be saved. Considering that what we are discussing is whether or not Loghain had the right intentions rather than the eficacy of his actions, what is revelant here is not the possibility that the elves were sold without need but the simple fact that Loghain did it to save his homeland which he considered a worthy cause.

[quote]Very late in the game even Howe is recognizing it's a blight, but Mr. Compassionate Enslaver is still dismissive. So if it's not a blight, what is he selling elves for?[/quote]
Even if it was not a Blight, that does not change the fact there were thousands of darkspawn pouring into Ferelden. There was still much need of an army to stop them.

[quote]
but the other point not mentioned is that not being enslaved also does not necessarily mean dying to darkspawn. Shianni lives after all (unless racists kill her) as do plenty of other elves[/quote]
The only reason the Alienage can be saved it's because the Warden is a demigod who can, with a team of three people, cut his/her way through a city infested with the spawn. Also, the Warden can also enlist the aid of three armies to which Loghain would have had no acess to.
In any other situation, the Alienage was simply undefensible.

[quote]Loghain's compassionate "purge"[/quote]
Loghain conducted no purge. Howe did.

[quote]In any case I'd rather take my chances at fighting and winning than being given to well-known elf-sacrificers.[/quote]
Nice tought. Except gold was needed and there is an entire Ferelden out there that takes precedence over a dozen citizens.

[quote]Alienage elves are prevented from arming themselves against the blight and are dragged off north as slaves instead, there are then that many fewer soldiers to fight the Spawnies...[/quote]
One hundred sovereigns is worth more to the war effort than an elf who has never held a weapon in his life.

[quote]Faerunner is very right though about the hypocrisy of condoning one supposedly-profitable slavery while opposing slavery "in principle" when it applies to his own kind (which she's had to make repeatedly to get it addressed).[/quote]
There is no hipocrisy. You are warping the facts to support your theories when you should be doing the opposite.
You see Loghain selling elves and assume "racist" but you present nothing ingame that supports the idea Loghain chose to sell elves because they are elves rather than simply because they are the most defenseless class and thus, those whose disappearance would have less negative consequences.
What Loghains always defends his "Ferelden" not humans; I dare you to find one instance ingame where Loghain makes a distinction between ferelden humans and their elven counterparts.
They don't exist; therefore, the conclusion we can reach is that Loghain is not protecting his kind from a fate he would allow to befall upon others. The alienage elves are as much "his kind" as the humans because the kind he wishes to protect is "fereldans". Thus, there is no hipocrisy.
What Loghain is doing is allowing the enslavement of a few so that all may be free.

[quote]But again the formula of "enslaving a few (or dozens- whichever) vs becoming slaves to Orlay" is oversimplistic.[/quote]
Whether Loghain's fears were justified or not has no relevance regarding his motives for allowing the enslavement of allienage elves. Loghain firmly believed that if they were allowed inside the border, they would repeat the horrors of the occupation.
They do have an history of occupying countries they liberated from Bligths but Ferelden did need the assistance. Both sides have merits.

Of course, suggestions like "the soldiers wouldn't go for it" are absolute folly and, also, naive.

[quote]Plus Cailan's correspondence w the Orlesian Queen indicated (may have been false, but still) interest in a more meaningful peace between the two nations.[/quote]
The more powerful Orlais would just swallow up Ferelden. And this without sending one soldier across the border. Cailan was an idiot who would have sold Ferelden for the title of "Emperor".

[quote]Enslaving elves or murdering Wardens or torturing those who could expose one's plots... These are not an "oops." One doesn't accede to such actions in the same way that one might accidentally turn down the wrong road en route to a destination or forget a dental appointment. Villainy disqualifies Loghain from the Misunderstood Hero Award.
And when someone's reaction to having their misdeeds pointed out to them is to contrive political spin to rationalize it (and you know he'd have executed your Warden and all your companions and lost the world to darkspawn if his spin had prevailed), this indicates only depravity and deceptiveness, not a "heart; in the, right; place."[/quote]
It is the nature of one's objectives rather than the methods one uses to achieve them that determine whether one has his heart in the right place.
We can analyze the morality of Loghains's actions as well as their effectiveness and necessity but we must also take into account the ultimate objective of all these endeavors and how efective and necessary they appeared to Loghai at the time if we wish to determine his own morality.
Whether he is a hero or a villain is something that will, ultimately, be influenced by everyone's bias.

Modifié par MisterJB, 18 août 2013 - 03:06 .

[Bhryaen]

So you disagree with the proposition that a missed turn during a drive is a qualitatively different error than deciding to enslave, torture, and murder as your modus operendi? Hm, this appears a disagreement that cannot be resolved...

And perhaps you don't understand the term "idealist." I find it more ironic to see such flagrant appeals to mere ideals of an idol "having one's heart in the right place" (something with no evidential or realistic basis, just a presumption about intentionality) by one who claims to eschew idealism. Minor point only, but you certainly haven't delineated how idealism is demonstrated with the recognition of qualitative differences on multiple acts which could be described (perhaps falsely) as falling under the common title "error". Better would be seeking the clarification that Loghain's errors were not those he (or his apologists) acknowledge as such.

The bulk of your response uses the tedious method of breaking all my statements into separate sentences often out of context, so it becomes tedious to correct all the strawmen you construct out of the piecemeal, but I'll address the main assertions. You see, there's a distinction between arguing against assertions and arguing against sentences.

First- I never called Loghain a racist. Faerunner may have, and I'd disagree- not that it's proven untrue (it hasn't been), but just because it's a fruitless accusation to level against him given how necessarily inconclusive (and ultimately irrelevant) it becomes. I'm not so sure she's arguing that, however.

On the other hand, the policy of applying only to elves has a racist aspect based in fact. I'll concede the point that elves are the second class citizens living in a ghetto- I mean, Alienage- and thus that they're likely targeted due to their social vulnerability rather than simply due to elf hate. But this doesn't assuage the fact that elves are targeted as a race. By all means tell Africans in the 1600s that they're only being targeted because they're socially vulnerable. When the exploitation involves being considered less than human- chattel even- and applies to you overtly and systematically due to your skin color rather than your social station, you're going to experience what's called racism. Well-off blacks lived in constant danger of being tossed into slavery despite holding all the "freedom" papers blacks were required to carry. Your argument panders to ignorance of race-based oppression itself. For those not subjected to it, perhaps it is more of a concept than a material fact of life. What marks an elf as slave-potential when Loghain starts getting gold-hungry is not being poor- as are all too many humans- but simply being elf.

And the double-standard that Faerunner points out- glaringly obvious as it is- continues to elude your "non-idealist" thinking. It's very simple- and I see you like it very simple, so: the principle of resisting enslavement at all costs applies to humans, not to elves- at least as far as Loghain's policies run. It couldn't matter less how you rationalize enslavement of elves: the hypocrisy of human enslavement "freedom or death" v elven enslavement "good for business"... is incontrovertible. It's as idealistic as the founding of the US Constitution on freedom and equality... for landed white men only. Nice idea. Works on paper.

One needn't be idealistic to recognize a logical fallacy. If the concept of "slavery should be resisted at any cost" applies only to humans while "slavery's a good way of filling the coffers" applies to elves- as it clearly does for Loghain- there's a double-standard... which results in humans free and elves enslaved. How you feel about either of the two standards is irrelevant: there are two, and they're applied on a racial basis.

Point 2 is the whopping 100 sovs per slave. 100 sovs is what I end up scrimping and saving the first half of the game in order to procure a single nice belt from the Circle, but ok, they can sell scrawny Alienage elves for 100 sovs each, even old men... for whatever... As Corker pointed out above, the game lore on slave profits varies dramatically. In DA2 it's 100 sovs. In DAO (the game in which Loghain does the elf-selling and the game which came out when no DA2 existed) Zevran was sold for only a few sovs- which he says was a good price. On that basis I'm inclined to dismiss the DA2 amount altogether. Loghain's Fine Elven Slaves and Interior Design, Inc., was founded in the context of DAO's world alone with no reflection on the completely unwritten DA2. They're clearly different games with different contexts. Plus I've never played DA2 myself and don't know if that 100 sov figure was for some "special" slaves or what. DAO is DAO, and in DAO slave profits don't appear to measure up to the requisites of military build-up.

Point 3 is what Loghain uses the profits for. This is where your idealism blinds you the worst. Look at the actual Loghain actions, not the ideal of a leader's "heart": he funds assassination of you and your companions and anyone else as a Gray Warden. Kill 'em all, says he. They're renown as darkspawn-killers- and no, he doesn't know why, but that's the legend, so why kill them? Does he even inquire to make sure he's not compromising blight-defeating efforts? No: it's kill 'em and ask questions later. Yet you'll let him pass due to ignorance? Reminds me of the Steve Martin joke: "Remember two simple words: 'I forgot.' How many times do we get ourselves in trouble because we don't remember those two simple words. Let's say you rob a bank. You tell the judge, 'I forgot armed robbery was illegal.'" (paraphrased) His main concern with Wardens wasn't even that he thought their role hyped up: it was that he sought a scapegoat for abandoning Cailan and falsely accused the Wardens, requiring him to murder any remaining so as to cover his tracks. And to do the murdering of Wardens, this required funds... as Crows can be expensive... So naturally he sold elven people to Tevinter. That's what you argue for when you try to rationalize the "greater good" of Loghain's Slaves & Dry Goods: your own death as a Warden.

And then there is the other slew of stupid that Loghain does as regent that requires funding. And, mind you, all of it was under his command. Trying to palm it off on Howe is part of the spin: Loghain selected and hired him out of all the various sorts and talents in the land of Ferelden, knew exactly what kind of role he had in mind for Howe, promised him Castle Cousland over the dead bodies if the Couslands, was aware of and approved of every plot (despite deceptively trying to distance himself from Howe at the Landsmeet), and actually sought the snake's counsel. Loghain had an agenda that only a scuzbag would be able to implement, and he kept promoting the guy and keeping him as his right-hand up until his death. Very simple again: Loghain should take responsibility for the command he cultivated and executed... And unlike yourself Loghain does take such responsibility for it- albeit after he gets his arse whupped and only under certain conversation options. No leader can ever claim complete ignorance of what's going on under their command: their personnel decisions directly produce particular ends.

The worst of Loghain's stupid was committing the royal treasury to fighting a civil war to ensure loyalty to his usurped regency... at all, much less in the midst of a blight. You can see the sense in making sacrifices for a war on darkspawn- at least regarding sacrificing elves to slavery- but you don't even have an inkling that Loghain might sacrifice his regency status for the unity of Ferelden against the blight. Of course not! Loghain must be king! Or let Ferelden be swallowed up in taint for all his "in-the-right-place heart" is concerned. Now, I don't know what actually would've been done instead. Him step aside for what exactly? Bann Teagan for Prez? Establish a parliamentary system on the fly? Loghain had obviously neutralized Eamon (another plot worth enslaving elves to fund). But it's incontrovertible that Loghain was a divisive figure who undermined rather than united Ferelden v Team Spawnie (until his arse-whuppin'). So came the greatest cost involved in Loghain's elf-enslavement-funded campaigns: armed suppression of Ferelden to ensure his rule. (You know... because sometimes you have to violently suppress a nation in order to keep them from being violently suppressed. Hm, seems he and Orlay might have something in common regarding designs on the Ferelden fair damsel. "I'm only applying these shackles to people in order to make damn sure they're free. Shackles are the best way to lockdown a heart in the right place...")

Whether he would've fought the darkspawn afterward or not- and as I mentioned, he wouldn't even listen to Howe on the damage being done to Ferelden's capacity to resist the darkspawn- becomes irrelevant: he was already compromising Ferelden's survival by focusing on military campaigns against resistant banns and would've botched it entirely. And that was worth shackles on elves? You can explain your rationalizations to Soris after they take his wife. Surely he'll understand. And, of course, enslaving Alienage elves involved seeking the understanding of the Alienage elves.

"But I want to RULE!" said the power-grabby human.
"I noticed," replied the enslaved elf. "Do I get a choice in the matter? I'd rather not be a-"
"Of course you have no choice," answered the slave profiting human regent. "You're a slave! Hahaha... But seriously, just remember I'm succeeding at killing dissenters, consolidating power, and enjoying my regency all because of enslaving your profitable behind. So thanks. Really. From the shallow depths of my heart."
"Wow," concluded the enslaved elf. "I feel special."

So this brings us to the oversimplicity of the formula "sell slaves, kill darkspawn." Over the course of the entirety of pre-Landsmeet DAO Loghain never uses a single silver, much less 100 sovs- toward fighting the darkspawn. Not even at Ostagar where darkspawn were in his face and all his troops were primed and ready did Loghain fight the Spawnies. The entire game to that point he does everything but fight Spawnies. So when I say that letting Loghain barter away elven lives to Tevinter wasn't warranted even solely on the grounds of how Loghain spent the coin, this is why. Selling elves did not translate into dead darkspawn. That formula is as contrived as his notion that your Warden killed Cailan. (I played the same game, so I know yours didn't either.) The more accurate formula would be: Loghain as regent = dead Wardens, enslaved elves, divided nation, broken Circle = darkspawn victory = Ferelden loses. Or even simpler: regent Loghain = epic fail. Like it or not, that's the DAO storyline... not your ideal of "sacrifice the few for the benefit of the many" which doesn't apply here... other than perhaps as a selfless Gray Warden credo applying to themselves, not to enslaving Alienage elves (though Wardens are given the option to sacrifice Alienage elves for the "greater good" of Team Warden getting 1 extra CON point... Loghain approves +10).

Point 4- I'm not assessing Loghain's "morality." This aspect doesn't concern me at all given that morality is as relative as opinion. I also leave presumptions about intentionality out of my assessments- something you don't do in your assertions about Loghain's, Orlesians', Cailan's, etc., intentions- all things we can opine about given this or that hint in the game, but which never came to fruition in-game and thus aren't facts we can assert as such. "Loghain wanted to-" How do you know? You've consulted the Loghain in your heart and he told you so? As much of a huggy doll as he is at bedtime, you're still just grafting your own narrative onto the otherwise incomplete picture of a Thedan reality that wasn't written by you.

For ex., Cailan never "sold" or attempted to "sell" Ferelden to Orlay. Nor do we see scenes in which Orlay's monarch is hatching a plot to "buy" Ferelden- with or without Cailan. I'm not saying Orlay is now a new nation that would never opportunistically occupy a nation beset by blight. I'm not saying there aren't lore sources in-game to imagine such a "sale/ purchase." I'm not saying anything about it: I don't know, so that's it- indefinite. You're free to imagine anything you like regarding character motivation and intent or unrealized plot developments. It is fiction after all. But to present it as fact... is not as definitive as you may wish to believe... And clearly you do wish it. I just know your wishes, you see... with my all-seeing head canon narrative...

But whether Loghain is a villain, however, is (or ought be recognized as anyway) an irrefutable fact. You may empathize with a villain and internalize all his rationalizations for his misdeeds, but that his misdeeds were villainy is established by definition, not opinion. And this isn't a matter of just bandying about a term like "maleficar" to malign one's foes. Storybook villains are a delineable element in fiction as such. There may be stories that apply stress to the mechanics of the protagonist-antagonist conflict- and DAO is one such story given that you can later recruit Loghain as an unwaveringly loyal protagonist support- but it's a good ol' simple fact that he remains one of the chief antagonists throughout the bulk of the story (among such honored company as demons, darkspawn, blood mages, bandits, and snarky boatmen) who obstruct your Warden's efforts to defeat the blight.

Loghain could just as well be written out of the story and his role instead be taken up by a Cailan who was already king and thus never became a tyrant, received the widespread support of the nation, never tried to assassinate Wardens or political rivals, of course never sold elves to Tevinter, in short never tried to shove his "good for Fereldens" down the throats of Fereldens... but had a single fatal flaw of complete hubris about the blight. And this hubris could continuously keep compromising throughout the game our Warden's efforts to defeat the darkspawn. So despite being a nice guy, all friendly and dandy in his kingly armor, he would still be a game antagonist- perhaps an unwitting villain who has little to dislike, but ultimately a nemesis to defeat in order to save the world. One could narrow it to his hubris being the villain, but that hubris is an integral part of his character and wouldn't be battled apart from Cailan himself, so... damage is done and rivalry with him inevitable due to that one reprehensible trait. It's just storytelling basics.

But it's no semantic stretch in Loghain's actual case, his villainy as glaring as a witnessed mugging of a senior citizen. ("Listen, old lady. I'm taking your food rations for the greater good of Ferelden...") They even show us cutscenes of it as players that our Warden could never even have known about. Feel for the poor, defeated tyrant, uncritically repeat his political spin like religious mantra, but you'll only undo his villainy and thereby save Ferelden by opposing him. He's seeking your death and undoing, not your cooperation. And the more thoroughly you do defeat him, the better your work in defeating the blight. Our Wardens demonstrate that selling aliens from the Alienage was all along completely unnecessary for- indeed counterproductive to- the heroic rescue of Ferelden that Loghain did nothing but hamper, complicate, and nearly thwart. In fact, we do it by employing elves, thwarting his slaver chums- erm, associates- and kicking Logwart's arse. With heroes like the Hero of the River Dane, who needs villains?

It is the nature of one's objectives rather than the methods one uses to achieve them that determine whether one has their heart in the right place

So if I want to get a week off for my child from her elementary school (OK, I have no kids, but still) in order that she can join a family vacation, I could hire someone to go into the school and shoot up a whole classroom of kids so that the school closes for a while, thereby getting at least a week off for her... and my heart will remain in its "right place." Ethics made (over)simple! After all, for you it's only the objectives that count. Or I could threaten the lives of her teacher's family unless the teacher agrees- also a heartwarming method. Well, good to know Machiavellianism is synonymous with virtue. The thing is, not all means justify the ends. The means of merely informing the school about my child leaving for a week and having her do make-up homework is justifiable toward the end of a nice week's vacation. ("Sorry, nonexistent daughter, Daddy favors reasonability over pretend pragmatism.")

In your case you reason that Loghain is justified in orchestrating the darkspawnification of Ferelden because that particular means brings the end that Orlay doesn't get to occupy Ferelden- or at least not occupy a non-darkspawnified Ferelden. Perhaps many Fereldens might agree that they'd rather be Spawnie food and broodmoms than Orlesians, but already there is an exception to the "all means make your heart shiny and new" rule for those Fereldens (and Gray Wardens) who put defeating a blight as the top priority rather than thwarting Orlesian conquest plans- imagined or no. But despite your characters being Wardens perhaps they see themselves first as Loghain-lackeys and only secondarily as darkspawn-defeaters, so blight-abetting Loghain maneuvers can be enabled even by lame rationalizations without losing "heartfulness." As I said, there may be qualitative differences for which there simply never will be a resolution. And I'm not one to excuse anyone for anything on the poetic and not-so-terribly substantive grounds of the "place" in which their "heart" supposedly resides while committing atrocities. I'll determine the quality of a character based on both the ends sought and the means employed, thank you very much.

Point 5- Yes, there are fundraising alternatives to enslaving elves. This really needs to be said? I notice I left my suggestion list undeveloped. I'm no government official, but there are plenty of methods they employ to generate coin or in any case effect a particular end. In WW2 one method of the US govt was seizing gold assets- outright nationalizing them and requiring everyone, particularly the wealthy, to fund the war in that way. No huge bourgeois backlash at that time: ending the world conflagration was deemed worthy of the requisite. The main reason Loghain would meet resistance isn't the heavy-handedness or the reluctance of nobles to part with their coin, but rather his power-grab approach to everything and the nefarious projects Loghain would be using the seized assets for.

You also conveniently ignored the suggestion I made of Loghain simply inspiring volunteerism, using the regency not to attempt to bludgeon the nation into acquiescence to his rule but to exhort about fighting the blight and remaining united as Fereldens, making the case that Duncan was making, doing his best to make the "greater good" promise of his power usurpation a credible claim. Why not an alliance with the Gray Wardens? Why is everything an iron fist with the dweeb? I've heard the "defense" that Loghain was a general, not a public speaker- a Coriolanus of sorts- and thus he sucked at persuasion. Fine, then send Queen Anora out to do the exhorting. She's supposedly still the ruler, not Pops, right? People might listen to her despite her actual puppet status. Or hire someone else- not a scuzbag like Howe but a genuine spokesperson to reach out to the various banns and nobles and soldiery to make the case about sparing no personal financial or other sacrifice to stop the blight (which Loghain still didn't regard properly anyway). These things are done by non-tyrants all the time... but Loghain wasn't a non-tyrant, and effectively stopping the blight was not among his higher priorities (or even possibly his lower ones).

Not sure why a Loghain apologist might be so wed to the idea of enslaving Alienage folks as the sov-making opportunity of a lifetime- other than simply because Loghain did it. It's just the only one mentioned in-game. It was more a method one might employ when one is looking for a quick fix rather than a solution and isn't concerned with the depravity of one's actions- so apparently right up Loghain's alley. The writing staff probably could've come up with numerous more effective and substantive solutions, but they would've been much more sophisticated than integral with Loghain's "character," so for this reason the

Point 6: funny to be called "naive" for speculating that Orlesian troops might rebel rather than continue dying after already suffering heavy losses stopping the blight, now dying simply in order to once again oppress the same Fereldens they were just shedding blood with against the darkspawn. This phenomena is not unknown in history (except by the ignorant, I suppose). It happened with US troops in Europe in resistance to being used to conquer the USSR after Germany had conceded, as I mentioned. It was also rampant between German troops and Russisns or French who were weary of the imperialist land grab of WW1 and who would literally waste ammo pretending to fight each other when their commanders ordered them to attack, sometimes creating ceasefire opportunities that the generals would never approve of, meeting each other on the battlefield for friendly visits. It can happen in particular historical conditions. It is not naivete to be aware of such possibilities given that IRL history supports it (and given what a good game story twist it could add)... and far more naive to swallow hookline-and-sinker every contrivance by the fictional General Slaveheart whose irrationality regarding Orlay was amply demonstrated in-game. Not that Orlesian troops would be inevitably inoculated against being used to reconquer and enslave Fereldens- not something to count on- but there are other possibilities in this world and Thedas than warriors whose agency cannot exceed a general's point-and-click commands.

Perhaps "idealism" isn't the correct word for Loghain apologism. "Naivete" is more than sufficient.

[sylvanaerie]

I just don't like slavery or treacherous backstabbers, his motivation is irrelevant. I don't feel the end justifies the means.

[ZekeShadowfyre]

When I watched the video detailing Loghain's reasons to enslave the elves, I found it abhorrent to justify funding the war effort. There were probably more solutions to protecting the Alienage and the elves, but with the whole idea stemmed in racist thought....well...

Opinions aside, I killed him.

[Last Darkness]

I always favored Harden Alistair, Conscript Logain and then have Alistair marry Anora.
(Make sure you choose Dog though as your champion in the fight for the hidden dialog)

Seemed the best choice for Ferelden, and battling the blight.