555 réponses à ce sujet

[Ariella]

IPerrin wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Cybercat999 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

We had the discussion on this thread, I believe. I just replayed the human noble origin and had a little talk with Duncan. He explained: "The Grey Wardens do not simply recruit anybody..."

Ah, so they can be picky, if they think it's appropriate? Like deciding not to let an enemy and a traitor join?

Technically, Cailan is the traitor for siding with Orlais in Loghains eyes.

If you're going to reach that far, you're going to hurt yourself.

Honestly, the truth of the matter is Loghain's presence as a Grey Warden so nessesary to end the Blight that it
superseded





superseded justice and the stability of Fereldan post Blight, especially considering there are other viable candidates for the Joining in Denerim at the time (Cauthen if you let her live for example or Gorim). In general, if it's a case of bodies needed who have the skill and will to survive there are several others who aren't charged with treason against their lord and sovereign. I have yet to see where any of Loghain's much lauded skill is truly so needed that it keeps his head on his shoulders.

  It's needed because you only have 3 grey wardens at the landsmeet and 4 would be so much better, and he definately has the necessary skills.  If I could only invoke the right of conscription on the likes of Ser Cauthrien, Gorim, Jowan and my own companions then I could agree with you.  Alas, the game is not designed that way.

Thing is two grey wardens have been doing just fine so far, and now with Riordan recovered you have a third. There's no real numerical difference (militarily speaking) between 3 and 4, and from the information the game presents at the Landsmeet, I've yet to see any compelling evidence that Loghain would be such an asset to save himself from the headsman. Going on only what the PC knows at the Landsmeet I don't see the logic of sparing him, especially since it's been driven home that he's nuts. So in a choice between a sane Alistair who fought by my side the entire time and an insane Loghain who'd quite possible throw off the party dynamic and whom I'd have to watch closer than Zeveran... I take Alistair.

[Eruanna Guerrein]

Sabriana wrote...

That's not really reaching far. Loghain is super paranoid about everything Orlais, and he has extremely good reasons to be paranoid (it's in the book, but I forget which one). He swore an oath to keep Orlais out of Ferelden, and he's trying to keep that oath. He does horrible things in the process, but he's no mustache twirling, madly cackling black hat bad guy.
My noble did not forgive him, but thought it best to go with Riordan's suggestion. Now, in my play-throughs he always dies, giving his life for Ferelden and the Grey Wardens, but he's one heck of a swordsman, and my noble was not about to pass that up.

He almost snapped Anora's head off when she mentions Orlais, and Cailan not only throws Orlais in his face, but makes excuses for using their chevaliers.
Again, anything can be dealt with after the Blight. Because if they can't slay the archdemon, there will be no "after". Never, ever.
Riordan suggests Loghain. Loghain is many bad things, but he is a very good fighter.
Sure, Cauthrien would also be a good choice, but the most senior GW suggests Loghain for several reasons. If Cuthrien declines, she has to be forced, but Loghain is all out of choices.
Gorim is injured, his knees are busted. That's why he had to become a merchant in Denerim.

I have no problem with how your PCs view things. Differences are what makes the world go round. But it's not the only valid way to look at it (not that you're saying it is but for those who do).

My PC and her companions have done just fine without Loghain, even with him trying to stop them every step of the way. They've killed darkspawn, abominations, undead, assassins, dragons, even Flemeth... why should I suddenly begin to doubt our skills and think there's no way we can win this unless we have this madman executioner on our side? Well it depends on who you are and how you're RPing your character. And Alistair can kick his ass so his swordsmanship definitely is not a reason to choose him over Al (from a metagaming standpoint).

And personally, the thought of having to either let Loghain live or let him die like some kind of hero... totally unappealing to me. And there's no way he would EVER be given the chance to rebuild the GWs. Even Jowan gets sent back to the Circle after he atones for his sin and his biggest sin was doing what his regent told him to do... but now the regent should get less punishment? Doesn't work in my view of justice.

And then again, that's what makes this debate, even though it's never ending, fun. To see other's viewpoints. I will admit I've had quite a few "ahhhh, that makes sense" moments while reading these threads. Nothing has changed my mind but my understanding has grown.

[eschilde]

Loghain was paranoid to the point where his judgment was skewed, but there is no evidence he didn't know the difference between right and wrong. I don't think you can really call him crazy; he made proper judgment calls based on what he thought the situation was, which was not a completely outlandish scenario. The harsh decisions he made were no worse than ones you were given an opportunity to make (wiping out the Dalish camp, leaving Redcliffe to be overrun by undead, killing Fort Drakon guards.. supporting a civil war, allowing the Tevinter slavers to get away, letting Branka have the Anvil..)



Duncan recruited able people when he saw good opportunities. He did not press people into the Wardens without their options being extremely limited already, which is the situation Loghain is put into after the Landsmeet. Being a Grey Warden is not a job, it's a physical condition. You can't just quit being a GW, although Alistair certainly tries given the correct conditions. If Loghain became a GW, he can no longer act against your interests, because he wouldn't be in a position of power, for one thing, and he wouldn't believe the archdemon didn't exist, for another.



Since Duncan is dead at this point, it's very hard to say what he would or wouldn't have done, but there is evidence to support that he may have been of the same mind as Riordan on this matter. Of course, if Duncan were still alive you probably would have been able to conscript people throughout the game.

[Creature 1]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
How many of you Loghain haters recruited Leliana or more to the point, Zevran?

Lel's harmless crazy, Zevran is a businessman.  If there's no money in killing you, he won't bother. 

Loghain's dangerous crazy, and gave most PCs ample reason to want him dead. 

[Ariella]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Cybercat999 wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Cybercat999 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

We had the discussion on this thread, I believe. I just replayed the human noble origin and had a little talk with Duncan. He explained: "The Grey Wardens do not simply recruit anybody..."

Ah, so they can be picky, if they think it's appropriate? Like deciding not to let an enemy and a traitor join?

Technically, Cailan is the traitor for siding with Orlais in Loghains eyes.

If you're going to reach that far, you're going to hurt yourself.

O rly? So if I can understand why the "bad guy" in some video game came to be a bad guy I am going to hurt myself? You do that often? Because I dont - I have every right to percieve my game and its characters any damn way I please.
If you are unable to see things from the point of view the people you dont like, you could hurt yourself much more imo.

You are using a crazy man's logic to justify yourself. That's a major stretch.

I have no problem seeing other points of view based on regular logic, but using the "logic" of the insane never works out well.

And you are missing the entire point of her post. Who are you to dictate what a player chooses? You got your opinion, she has hers, let her have it, stop trying to dictate she shouldn't do what she wants.

Actually, the quote I was responding to has nothing to do with the player's choice:

"Technically, Cailan is the traitor for siding with Orlais in Loghains eyes."

We're talking about Loghain's perception which she tried to use to justify Loghain's actions, as if his insanity gives hims some validity to what he did in the real world. THAT is a stretch, and it has nothing to do with role playing choices of the PC unless said PC for some reason recruits Loghain out of pity for his insanity. Otherwise its a stretch to use Loghain's insanity as a justification for his recruitment.

[Sabriana]

Right. This is really going around in circles now. I find it quite logical to see it as "Loghain believes Cailan to be a traitor to Ferelden"

Especially when he says something like: "and thank the Maker that Maric isn't alive to see his son throwing Ferelden to Orlais" He says it at the meeting in Ostagar. I don't have a save from there so I can't quote verbatim.



Off Topic: Ulich. Where is your dwarf? What have you done to the little cutie?

[robertthebard]

Ariella wrote...

Thing is two grey wardens have been doing just fine so far, and now with Riordan recovered you have a third. There's no real numerical difference (militarily speaking) between 3 and 4, and from the information the game presents at the Landsmeet, I've yet to see any compelling evidence that Loghain would be such an asset to save himself from the headsman. Going on only what the PC knows at the Landsmeet I don't see the logic of sparing him, especially since it's been driven home that he's nuts. So in a choice between a sane Alistair who fought by my side the entire time and an insane Loghain who'd quite possible throw off the party dynamic and whom I'd have to watch closer than Zeveran... I take Alistair.

Your metagame knowledge of you can reload a save if you fail should not be an applicable excuse to not having every warden you can get.  You see, just because Alistair is instrumental in your playing of the game doesn't mean he's instrumental in mine.  He's keeping the camp fire lit, so I suppose that's important, but I'd imagine even Dog could keep that going.  You see, you're telling me I should play the game this certain way because it makes Alistair happy.  Alistair could leave my camp at any time he chose, and I wouldn't miss him.  My happy ending for Alistair?  Dead on the floor of the Landsmeet, because that's the first time I can kill him.  If I could kill him after he finally mans up and admits to being Maric's son, I would.  Is this shocking to you?  Does it surprise you to learn that I find the guy that could have minimized Loghain's influence by manning up to who he is before I already did all my treaties, and saved Eamon for last, since I don't have a treaty for him, thereby affecting what I would do first to be as much responsible for everything Loghain did after Ostagar as Loghain himself?

"I don't want people to look at me differently" is not an excuse for allowing a civil war to escalate.  "I prefer to follow" or "I dont want to be King, and never wanted it" is not an excuse for allowing the civil war to escalate.  The fact that Alistair metagames the knowledge, that the PC shouldn't have, that Eamon won't call a Landsmeet until you have your treaties isn't an excuse to hold out that information.  While true, it is is metagaming on the part of a party NPC.  You can gloss this over by the warm fuzzies he gives you if you wish.  I choose to take him at face value in my games, this is how I choose to play.  If my playstyle doesn't suit you, well, that's just too bad, for you.  I am not obligated to play this game your way, just as you are not obligated to play it my way.  However, coming into a thread specifically about disliking a character, and saying that we are deluding ourselves by role playing our game in such a way that is inconsistent with your views does not reflect poorly on anyone that's posting in the thread that agrees with the topic.  It instead reflects poorly on you, for trying to control how we feel, and trying to suggest that we are somehow wrong.

[DPSSOC]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

How many of you Loghain haters recruited Leliana or more to the point, Zevran?

I've never killed Loghain because he was crazy or evil I kill him because he's used up my patience.

Zevran tried to kill me once, and everybody gets one.  Had the option to recruit Loghain come up right after Ostagar I'd have done it in a heart beat, but by the time I'm given the option he's tried to kill me 5 times.  Once is fine, even twice I can let slide, but 5 is just pushing it.

[IPerrin]

Ariella wrote...

IPerrin wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Cybercat999 wrote...

klarabella wrote...

We had the discussion on this thread, I believe. I just replayed the human noble origin and had a little talk with Duncan. He explained: "The Grey Wardens do not simply recruit anybody..."

Ah, so they can be picky, if they think it's appropriate? Like deciding not to let an enemy and a traitor join?

Technically, Cailan is the traitor for siding with Orlais in Loghains eyes.

If you're going to reach that far, you're going to hurt yourself.

Honestly, the truth of the matter is Loghain's presence as a Grey Warden so nessesary to end the Blight that it
superseded





superseded justice and the stability of Fereldan post Blight, especially considering there are other viable candidates for the Joining in Denerim at the time (Cauthen if you let her live for example or Gorim). In general, if it's a case of bodies needed who have the skill and will to survive there are several others who aren't charged with treason against their lord and sovereign. I have yet to see where any of Loghain's much lauded skill is truly so needed that it keeps his head on his shoulders.

  It's needed because you only have 3 grey wardens at the landsmeet and 4 would be so much better, and he definately has the necessary skills.  If I could only invoke the right of conscription on the likes of Ser Cauthrien, Gorim, Jowan and my own companions then I could agree with you.  Alas, the game is not designed that way.

Thing is two grey wardens have been doing just fine so far, and now with Riordan recovered you have a third. There's no real numerical difference (militarily speaking) between 3 and 4, and from the information the game presents at the Landsmeet, I've yet to see any compelling evidence that Loghain would be such an asset to save himself from the headsman. Going on only what the PC knows at the Landsmeet I don't see the logic of sparing him, especially since it's been driven home that he's nuts. So in a choice between a sane Alistair who fought by my side the entire time and an insane Loghain who'd quite possible throw off the party dynamic and whom I'd have to watch closer than Zeveran... I take Alistair.

    Most of my grey wardens have slain him.  I don't see how you can't see the logic in the RP angle where you would want to convince a hero of ferelden to see things your way.  And why would your warden assume that it is "him or me" between Alistair and Loghain?  If you are truly going with just the knowledge that your warden has at the landsmeet, then Alistair has not given you that ultimatum yet.   Alistair is as obsessed with vengence as Loghain is paranoid about Orlais.  I don't want to trust either of those maniacs.   The grey wardens do need everyone they can get however.  prefectly sensible to take them both, or kill Alistair for the same reasons Duncan killed Jory.

[Valmy]

ckriley wrote...
Not to mention he's horrible in combat as well. 

I just do not get this whine.  There is nothing special about Alistair that makes him different than any other bundle of stats.  You get him at an early enough level to spec him  however you like if he sucks as a tank then either all tanks suck or you suck at building tanks.

[Zafireria]

So many opinions about this game, be careful you can get dizzy of this lol.



I haven't read all the pages yet, but I thought I would say a word or two.

As far with Alistair. He is a tank in my party and he does excellent, if it weren't for him, I would never have beat the game, especially not at the Archdemon, my entire party had been whiped out at the very end. Only Alistair was alive, I thought I would lose but somehow I manage to kill the dragon spite it did have some life left. In the cut scene I killed the dragon, but what ever lol.

I think this is just all about how you set the tactic and strategy, plus how you gear him. On my part I had no problems with him being a tank.



As for his personality, I really think that is a matter of who you are, some people can't stand him, while other adore him and then we have those who thinks he is okay. It is just like in real life, there are some people you like and there are some you dislike.

Also when it comes to the game ending, some kill Loghain, others keeps him. Some say that that it is Alistair's duel, his moment.

We all have different opinions about a person or how things are suppose to be. That is why we don't all chose the same ending.



My opinion? I let Alistair do the duel and kill Loghain, I am one of those who believe it is his moment. Also in my game he didn't wanted to be king, so I made Anora queen (have only completed the game ones)



I think Alistair is a fun person, he may be confused or at times immature. But try be in a war and see if you can keep yourself together. I would find that hard if the entire country saw me as a traitor, plus weird demon looking things kept chasing me trying to kill me.

His jokes lights up in a time there is full of darkness, instead of just being hard, scared, nervous, sad, and so on. He seems to try and make the situation more 'soft' unless his jokes makes you annoyed ofc

It all comes down to who you are, just take it easy, it is just a game after all. If you hate him so much, be glad he isn't standing behind you telling one if his jokes.



Beside that I find it interested to read all the different opinions there is about this game.

[Ariella]

Sabriana wrote...

Right. This is really going around in circles now. I find it quite logical to see it as "Loghain believes Cailan to be a traitor to Ferelden"
Especially when he says something like: "and thank the Maker that Maric isn't alive to see his son throwing Ferelden to Orlais" He says it at the meeting in Ostagar. I don't have a save from there so I can't quote verbatim.

Off Topic: Ulich. Where is your dwarf? What have you done to the little cutie?

Thing is what Loghain believes and what is actual FACT are two different things.

Fact: A darkspawn horde has formed. First in a very long time.
Fact: said horde has to be beaten back
Fact: the king has called in the Grey Wardens of Orlais as backup because there aren't enough Grey Wardens in Fereldan
Fact: Those reinforcements have not yet arrived and Cailan is willing to go along with a plan to crush the horde using available assets.
Fact: Loghain's plotting deprived Cailan's army of the contingent from Amaranthine prior to the battle and Loghain's army during the battle.
Fact: Loghain did nothing to check the horde while he was esstablishing himself in Denerim
Fact: Loghain ordered the abandoning of Lothering
Fact: Loghain arranged to murder the arl of Redcliffe
Fact: Loghain aligned himself with Howe, whom he KNEW was committing acts of torture etc and never tried to stop of check him

These are the FACTS and they are beyond dispute. I don't see where Loghain's insane perceptions trump facts when it comes to establishing guilt and innocence.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Sabriana wrote...

Right. This is really going around in circles now. I find it quite logical to see it as "Loghain believes Cailan to be a traitor to Ferelden"
Especially when he says something like: "and thank the Maker that Maric isn't alive to see his son throwing Ferelden to Orlais" He says it at the meeting in Ostagar. I don't have a save from there so I can't quote verbatim.

Off Topic: Ulich. Where is your dwarf? What have you done to the little cutie?

That is pretty much exactly what he says to Cailan yes.

Off topic: He's still around, just fancied a change, this is my human noble character funnily enough named "Ulrich"

[Eruanna Guerrein]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Eruanna Guerrein wrote...

Surely you don't think you can really compare a mage who thought he was helping a friend, not a blood mage, or a city elf who was trying to save his friends and fiance to Loghain, do you? Or even a thieving Daveth or Duncan. Not a single person you mentioned has come even close to committing the level of crimes that Loghain has committed.
Oh and another thing... none of those recruited were crazy. I've yet to see one of you deny that he was either.

And yet have they come to committing the great things that he has done either? No...

Hmm, did they help lead a rebel army against the occupying forces of the Orlesians and drive them out of Ferelden? No, have they been at the forefront of ensuring the nation wasn't invaded again? No.

Loghain has.

Oh and ignoring 'warden' recruits for a minute and bringing it more to a player party level. To quote the Loghain haters most favourite party member.

More crazy... I thought we were all full up.

How many of you Loghain haters recruited Leliana or more to the point, Zevran?

Loghain hasn't done anything more great than the PC and party have done at this point. And he didn't have a crazy person trying to off him in the process of doing it but he did have the support of the king and the people and monetary support and a full on army.

And a joking line by a party member, who doesn't even give disapproval if you do recruit her, is somehow supposed to relate to some not wanting to have a paranoid criminal join your ranks? Besides, Leliana wasn't recruited into the GWs. And what does Zev have to do with anything in this conversation? Because he was an assassin hired by oh wait... that's right, Loghain, the one who truly wants you dead. Not the one doing his job with no personal vendetta.

And that one poster, can't remember her name, has an extremely valid point also. Why is Loghain the only choice? What about Leliana? Or Ohgren? Or....  oh yeah, those damn plot lines again. Wait... isn't that the same reason you're given no option to explain things to Alistair because if they didn't have him do what he did, the PC and Al could live without doing the ritual because Loghain could be the one to die.

My point isn't that my view is right, it's that no view is right. And saying that there's no choice but to think you can't win without Loghain or that you're a fool if you don't recruit him is ridiculous.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Ariella wrote...

Thing is what Loghain believes and what is actual FACT are two different things.

Fact: A darkspawn horde has formed. First in a very long time.
Fact: said horde has to be beaten back
Fact: the king has called in the Grey Wardens of Orlais as backup because there aren't enough Grey Wardens in Fereldan
Fact: Loghain did nothing to check the horde while he was esstablishing himself in Denerim
Fact: Loghain ordered the abandoning of Lothering

These are the FACTS and they are beyond dispute. I don't see where Loghain's insane perceptions trump facts when it comes to establishing guilt and innocence.

FACT you clearly don't know much about tactical warfare if you are trying to use his ordering of Lothering to be abandoned as something against him and he was involved in a civil war and actually he WAS aware of the growing threat of the darkspawn, but there had been no FACTS to confirm it was a blight as the Archdemon never showed himself till it lead them to Denerim, so before you start trying to spout FACTS might want to think a bit harder

Also one other fact from previous blights, neighbouring territory forces have been sometimes known to dig in after blights and try to exploit the weakened country, so Loghain considering his past history with Orlais was spot on for keeping them out.

[Sabriana]

Eruanna Guerrein wrote...

I have no problem with how your PCs view things. Differences are what makes the world go round. But it's not the only valid way to look at it (not that you're saying it is but for those who do).

My PC and her companions have done just fine without Loghain, even with him trying to stop them every step of the way. They've killed darkspawn, abominations, undead, assassins, dragons, even Flemeth... why should I suddenly begin to doubt our skills and think there's no way we can win this unless we have this madman executioner on our side? Well it depends on who you are and how you're RPing your character. And Alistair can kick his ass so his swordsmanship definitely is not a reason to choose him over Al (from a metagaming standpoint).

And personally, the thought of having to either let Loghain live or let him die like some kind of hero... totally unappealing to me. And there's no way he would EVER be given the chance to rebuild the GWs. Even Jowan gets sent back to the Circle after he atones for his sin and his biggest sin was doing what his regent told him to do... but now the regent should get less punishment? Doesn't work in my view of justice.

And then again, that's what makes this debate, even though it's never ending, fun. To see other's viewpoints. I will admit I've had quite a few "ahhhh, that makes sense" moments while reading these threads. Nothing has changed my mind but my understanding has grown.

Of course my way is not the only valid way. But that is how I play the game. It's just different from your way, that is all. There is no right or wrong way. As Eschilde so aptly points out, the PC can make decisions that could have horrible consequences. My noble didn't slay the elves, didn't let Branka have the anvil, as a matter of fact, she's a good girl. A bit chaotic at times, but good nevertheless.

What you say makes perfect sense to me. This is the way you see it, and it is a logical viewpoint. That does not make mine invalid, it just adds another dimension. I wouldn't think of telling you how to play your game, that is your business and none of mine.

You see, I heartily dislike the Alistair character, and therefore it makes sense to just leave him at camp. He's never in my party from a certain point on, though the others are pretty much frequently exchanged. Well, except Morrigan, but that's another story.  What you view as justice, and what I view as justice are two totally different things, but neither one is invalid.

[robertthebard]

Eruanna Guerrein wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Eruanna Guerrein wrote...

Surely you don't think you can really compare a mage who thought he was helping a friend, not a blood mage, or a city elf who was trying to save his friends and fiance to Loghain, do you? Or even a thieving Daveth or Duncan. Not a single person you mentioned has come even close to committing the level of crimes that Loghain has committed.
Oh and another thing... none of those recruited were crazy. I've yet to see one of you deny that he was either.

And yet have they come to committing the great things that he has done either? No...

Hmm, did they help lead a rebel army against the occupying forces of the Orlesians and drive them out of Ferelden? No, have they been at the forefront of ensuring the nation wasn't invaded again? No.

Loghain has.

Oh and ignoring 'warden' recruits for a minute and bringing it more to a player party level. To quote the Loghain haters most favourite party member.

More crazy... I thought we were all full up.

How many of you Loghain haters recruited Leliana or more to the point, Zevran?

Loghain hasn't done anything more great than the PC and party have done at this point. And he didn't have a crazy person trying to off him in the process of doing it but he did have the support of the king and the people and monetary support and a full on army.

And a joking line by a party member, who doesn't even give disapproval if you do recruit her, is somehow supposed to relate to some not wanting to have a paranoid criminal join your ranks? Besides, Leliana wasn't recruited into the GWs. And what does Zev have to do with anything in this conversation? Because he was an assassin hired by oh wait... that's right, Loghain, the one who truly wants you dead. Not the one doing his job with no personal vendetta.

And that one poster, can't remember her name, has an extremely valid point also. Why is Loghain the only choice? What about Leliana? Or Ohgren? Or....  oh yeah, those damn plot lines again. Wait... isn't that the same reason you're given no option to explain things to Alistair because if they didn't have him do what he did, the PC and Al could live without doing the ritual because Loghain could be the one to die.

My point isn't that my view is right, it's that no view is right. And saying that there's no choice but to think you can't win without Loghain or that you're a fool if you don't recruit him is ridiculous.

So there's no right or wrong, unless you spare Loghain?  Then it's full of wrong?

My point isn't that my view is right, it's that no view is right. And saying that there's no choice but to think you can't win without Loghain or that you're a fool if you don't recruit him is ridiculous.

Isn't this exactly what you say here?  From a roleplay pov, there is no reason to assume either way is right or wrong.  If you're having warm fuzzies for Alistair, and let him kill Loghain, more power to you.  If you feel that Riordan may indeed have a valid point, more power to you.  If you want to metagame to know that you can solo the Archdemon with nobody with you, then this is the wrong topic.  There are vids on youtube about that, however.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Eruanna Guerrein wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

And yet have they come to committing the great things that he has done either? No...

Hmm, did they help lead a rebel army against the occupying forces of the Orlesians and drive them out of Ferelden? No, have they been at the forefront of ensuring the nation wasn't invaded again? No.

Loghain has.

Loghain hasn't done anything more great than the PC and party have done at this point. And he didn't have a crazy person trying to off him in the process of doing it but he did have the support of the king and the people and monetary support and a full on army.

sorry but that is just laughable, you clearly don't know Ferelden history do you, I'm out of this topic, I don't see the point in debating with idiots

[Sabriana]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Eruanna Guerrein wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

And yet have they come to committing the great things that he has done either? No...

Hmm, did they help lead a rebel army against the occupying forces of the Orlesians and drive them out of Ferelden? No, have they been at the forefront of ensuring the nation wasn't invaded again? No.

Loghain has.

Loghain hasn't done anything more great than the PC and party have done at this point. And he didn't have a crazy person trying to off him in the process of doing it but he did have the support of the king and the people and monetary support and a full on army.

sorry but that is just laughable, you clearly don't know Ferelden history do you, I'm out of this topic, I don't see the point in debating with idiots

You know, this makes me wish they'd included a bit more backstory, especially for Loghain. He truly suffered terribly through Orlesian hands, and his paranoia is a bit more understandable if you know the story behind the man.

Loghain really did an awesome job in the rebellion, I doubt that Maric and Rowan would have been successful without him. That doesn't excuse his actions in "Origin" but it would give the player a more extended view of Loghain.

Alas, for now, the only way to get that backstory is by reading the books.

[Eruanna Guerrein]

robertthebard wrote...


So there's no right or wrong, unless you spare Loghain?  Then it's full of wrong?

My point isn't that my view is right, it's that no view is right. And saying that there's no choice but to think you can't win without Loghain or that you're a fool if you don't recruit him is ridiculous.

Isn't this exactly what you say here?  From a roleplay pov, there is no reason to assume either way is right or wrong.  If you're having warm fuzzies for Alistair, and let him kill Loghain, more power to you.  If you feel that Riordan may indeed have a valid point, more power to you.  If you want to metagame to know that you can solo the Archdemon with nobody with you, then this is the wrong topic.  There are vids on youtube about that, however.

Show me where I told someone they were wrong for sparing Loghain. I have not. I have defended my viewpoint and pointed out if I thought someone had a weak argument for their viewpoint. I have not, however, told anyone at any point that how they felt was wrong.

Ummm.... my first playthrough was not metagamed and I had no reason to believe my party couldn't handle the archdemon without Loghain. I did have reason to believe Loghain could try to thwart my efforts to do so however. I stated my reasonings for this just a post or two ago. Loghain's past achievements do not add up to anything greater than my party has done and he did it with more resources and no one trying to kill him in the process.

Because your first playthrough experience was different than mine and your viewpoints are different than mine does not in anyway mean I have to "metagame" or be in denial to have made the choices I made. I stand by my statement and until someone can show me a weakness or invalidity in my viewpoint, I will continue to stand by it.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

DPSSOC wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

How many of you Loghain haters recruited Leliana or more to the point, Zevran?

I've never killed Loghain because he was crazy or evil I kill him because he's used up my patience.

Zevran tried to kill me once, and everybody gets one.  Had the option to recruit Loghain come up right after Ostagar I'd have done it in a heart beat, but by the time I'm given the option he's tried to kill me 5 times.  Once is fine, even twice I can let slide, but 5 is just pushing it.

Yes, this.

By the time I had reached the Landsmeet, my capacity for patience and mercy had pretty much ran out. Mercy...not a self replenishing vessel. It just wasn't Loghain's lucky day.

Leliana wasn't standing in my way and undoing my alliances, or actively trying to erase me. Zevran was simply doing a job he was paid to, and didn't give a rat's ass if I was a Grey Warden or a Chantry sister. Biz was biz, and generally, I saw no real strong motivation to kill him. Saw far more uses instead. And, lucky for Zev, i was having a good hair day at that moment.

I spared Loghain once, and it just felt...wrong. Shant do it again.

[robertthebard]

Eruanna Guerrein wrote...

robertthebard wrote...


So there's no right or wrong, unless you spare Loghain?  Then it's full of wrong?

My point isn't that my view is right, it's that no view is right. And saying that there's no choice but to think you can't win without Loghain or that you're a fool if you don't recruit him is ridiculous.

Isn't this exactly what you say here?  From a roleplay pov, there is no reason to assume either way is right or wrong.  If you're having warm fuzzies for Alistair, and let him kill Loghain, more power to you.  If you feel that Riordan may indeed have a valid point, more power to you.  If you want to metagame to know that you can solo the Archdemon with nobody with you, then this is the wrong topic.  There are vids on youtube about that, however.

Show me where I told someone they were wrong for sparing Loghain. I have not. I have defended my viewpoint and pointed out if I thought someone had a weak argument for their viewpoint. I have not, however, told anyone at any point that how they felt was wrong.

Ummm.... my first playthrough was not metagamed and I had no reason to believe my party couldn't handle the archdemon without Loghain. I did have reason to believe Loghain could try to thwart my efforts to do so however. I stated my reasonings for this just a post or two ago. Loghain's past achievements do not add up to anything greater than my party has done and he did it with more resources and no one trying to kill him in the process.

Because your first playthrough experience was different than mine and your viewpoints are different than mine does not in anyway mean I have to "metagame" or be in denial to have made the choices I made. I stand by my statement and until someone can show me a weakness or invalidity in my viewpoint, I will continue to stand by it.

Bravo?  Didn't I requote you to support what I said?  So it's ridiculous, but right?  Yeah, I get that...

[Eruanna Guerrein]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Eruanna Guerrein wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

And yet have they come to committing the great things that he has done either? No...

Hmm, did they help lead a rebel army against the occupying forces of the Orlesians and drive them out of Ferelden? No, have they been at the forefront of ensuring the nation wasn't invaded again? No.

Loghain has.

Loghain hasn't done anything more great than the PC and party have done at this point. And he didn't have a crazy person trying to off him in the process of doing it but he did have the support of the king and the people and monetary support and a full on army.

sorry but that is just laughable, you clearly don't know Ferelden history do you, I'm out of this topic, I don't see the point in debating with idiots

Based on the information I and my PC are given in the game, I have no reason to believe he was any better than my party. I didn't realize I was supposed to have read the books in order to play the game correctly... by your standards of correctly of course.

And call me names if you will. It merely proves you can't handle mature debate and can't handle not being able to say your way is the only right way.

[Ariella]

robertthebard wrote...

Ariella wrote...

Thing is two grey wardens have been doing just fine so far, and now with Riordan recovered you have a third. There's no real numerical difference (militarily speaking) between 3 and 4, and from the information the game presents at the Landsmeet, I've yet to see any compelling evidence that Loghain would be such an asset to save himself from the headsman. Going on only what the PC knows at the Landsmeet I don't see the logic of sparing him, especially since it's been driven home that he's nuts. So in a choice between a sane Alistair who fought by my side the entire time and an insane Loghain who'd quite possible throw off the party dynamic and whom I'd have to watch closer than Zeveran... I take Alistair.

Your metagame knowledge of you can reload a save if you fail should not be an applicable excuse to not having every warden you can get. 

Thank you for putting words in my mouth again. I very specifically STATE that due to the information presented at the Landsmeet, I see no compelling reason why 3 wardens will not succeed where two have been doing fine so far.

You see, just because Alistair is instrumental in your playing of the game doesn't mean he's instrumental in mine.  He's keeping the camp fire lit, so I suppose that's important, but I'd imagine even Dog could keep that going.  You see, you're telling me I should play the game this certain way because it makes Alistair happy.  Alistair could leave my camp at any time he chose, and I wouldn't miss him.  My happy ending for Alistair?  Dead on the floor of the Landsmeet, because that's the first time I can kill him.  If I could kill him after he finally mans up and admits to being Maric's son, I would.  Is this shocking to you?  Does it surprise you to learn that I find the guy that could have minimized Loghain's influence by manning up to who he is before I already did all my treaties, and saved Eamon for last, since I don't have a treaty for him, thereby affecting what I would do first to be as much responsible for everything Loghain did after Ostagar as Loghain himself?

"I don't want people to look at me differently" is not an excuse for allowing a civil war to escalate.  "I prefer to follow" or "I dont want to be King, and never wanted it" is not an excuse for allowing the civil war to escalate.  The fact that Alistair metagames the knowledge, that the PC shouldn't have, that Eamon won't call a Landsmeet until you have your treaties isn't an excuse to hold out that information.  While true, it is is metagaming on the part of a party NPC.  You can gloss this over by the warm fuzzies he gives you if you wish.  I choose to take him at face value in my games, this is how I choose to play.  If my playstyle doesn't suit you, well, that's just too bad, for you.  I am not obligated to play this game your way, just as you are not obligated to play it my way.  However, coming into a thread specifically about disliking a character, and saying that we are deluding ourselves by role playing our game in such a way that is inconsistent with your views does not reflect poorly on anyone that's posting in the thread that agrees with the topic.  It instead reflects poorly on you, for trying to control how we feel, and trying to suggest that we are somehow wrong.

You're blaming the entire civil war on Alistair? This has nothing to do with player choice and everything to do with completely ignoring character back story AND what's going on in the world.

The civil war escalated without anyone having knowledge of Alistair, because they refused to fall in line the way Loghain wanted them to....

No matter what treaty you do, once you complete the first one, you get the Zeveran cutscene where Howe tells Loghain it's going to be civil war after all and their are calls from the Bannorn for him to step down. If ANYONE is at fault for allowing this civil war to escalate (besides Loghain and Howe) it's Anora. She the bloody queen, but she sits there looking like arm candy doing nothing except accepting Daddy's direction. No leadership, even though she's supposedly ruled the nation for 5 years behind the scenes. She's known most of the nobles for a while and worked with them and HAD to known how they'd respond to Daddy's ultimatium. But she sat and twittled her fingers until Fereldan burned down around her.

Even if Alistair "manned up" as you say, what position was he in to take the throne? If he had told you at Flemeth's hut, what could you do about the situation. The civil war is going to rage despite what you do, because the Bannorn isn't just going to fall in line for a man who's acting like Meghren of Orlais.

You also complain that Alistair "metagamed" his knowledge... Say WHAT? We're talking about someone who from an early age was told the throne was NOT for him, he was a possible THREAT to his half brother and been treated like some unwanted thing for most of his life. Why would ANYONE want to own up to that, especially when they have the chance to finally do something good and prove themselves on their own merits rather than preconceptions based on something they could never be anyway? What you call metagaming is actually a fundemental part of Alistair personality. If you don't like that... fine, but stop using your own metagame knowledge to blame him for something that the GAME doesn't allow you to do. The game is designed so that the civil war rages no matter what you do, and you can take part (there are a couple side quests to this end) or stick to getting the treaties and getting the army you need to end the Blight. But the revelation that Alistair is Maric's son at the moment you set out from Flemeth's wouldn't change much because A) who would believe you considering you're Grey Wardens with prices on your heads the armies you're gathering aren't going to fight in a Fereldan civil war (something confirmed by the Devs and if you don't want an in game reason why they won't: it's outside the scope of their treaties) so Alistair has no base to work from until you at least resolve the Redcliffe situation. So Alistair keeping it from your PC until REdcliffe doesn't change anything but potentially your PC's perception of him. There's nothing he could have done differently to stop this war or cool it down. He had neither the standing (he's illegitimate and no real connection to any noble family but Redcliffe) and he has no army, thus no way to enforce his will even if he wanted to.

All running around saying he was Maric's son, without legitimate noble backing, would have either gotten him laughed out of town or killed.

[Eruanna Guerrein]

robertthebard wrote...

Eruanna Guerrein wrote...

robertthebard wrote...


So there's no right or wrong, unless you spare Loghain?  Then it's full of wrong?

My point isn't that my view is right, it's that no view is right. And saying that there's no choice but to think you can't win without Loghain or that you're a fool if you don't recruit him is ridiculous.

Isn't this exactly what you say here?  From a roleplay pov, there is no reason to assume either way is right or wrong.  If you're having warm fuzzies for Alistair, and let him kill Loghain, more power to you.  If you feel that Riordan may indeed have a valid point, more power to you.  If you want to metagame to know that you can solo the Archdemon with nobody with you, then this is the wrong topic.  There are vids on youtube about that, however.

Show me where I told someone they were wrong for sparing Loghain. I have not. I have defended my viewpoint and pointed out if I thought someone had a weak argument for their viewpoint. I have not, however, told anyone at any point that how they felt was wrong.

Ummm.... my first playthrough was not metagamed and I had no reason to believe my party couldn't handle the archdemon without Loghain. I did have reason to believe Loghain could try to thwart my efforts to do so however. I stated my reasonings for this just a post or two ago. Loghain's past achievements do not add up to anything greater than my party has done and he did it with more resources and no one trying to kill him in the process.

Because your first playthrough experience was different than mine and your viewpoints are different than mine does not in anyway mean I have to "metagame" or be in denial to have made the choices I made. I stand by my statement and until someone can show me a weakness or invalidity in my viewpoint, I will continue to stand by it.

Bravo?  Didn't I requote you to support what I said?  So it's ridiculous, but right?  Yeah, I get that...

Did I say it was right or the only way to view it? If you reread it you'll see I said it was ridiculous to think there's no other choice.