597 réponses à ce sujet

[Dabrikishaw]

I just FINALLY realized "Loghain" was misspelled in the title.

[Monica21]

The problem is really that BioWare never seemed to be sure of what they wanted him to be, so of course the audience is going to be confused and divided. First he was the easy to kill villian, but they'd initially mapped out an entire game where Morrigan's suggestion of going straight to Denerim could be accomplished and you got him as a companion really early in-game, hence the Fade sequence. And then a few Loghain threads started popping up and the devs came to his side. No, he wasn't allied with Howe before Ostagar. He had a limited view of the battlefield. He didn't ever plan to kill Eamon. And on and on.

And just recently Gaider brought the hammer down on anyone who dared to spare Loghain because they were betraying Alistair, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It's character whiplash, and this isn't an MMO where you get to make new lore. The lore has been written. Loghain is what he is. Whether his portrayal in Origins is an accident or not, this is the monster BioWare created and this is a big part of the reason why he's still talked about. People who hate him have valid reasons for it. People who don't have just as valid reasons.

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Were Loghain's actions ambiguous? Yes, perhaps excessively so, but I argue a certain amount of ambiguity is a good thing. This ambiguity allowed for several interpretations to be made about him. And my sympathetic view of him and interpretation only needed what was in the game and nothing else. 

Part of the argument is that his actions weren't ambiguous - maybe justified, but not ambiguous.

Which argument?

Not mine, I've always said from the Warden's POV, his actions were very ambiguous.
But from a metagaming POV, his actions are less ambiguous, in large part yes because of Word of God that set some things in stone, like Loghain having nothing to do with the Cousland massacre. Is it a valid interpretation in-game? Absolutely, as is interpretting that he had nothing to do with it. Meta-gaming wise, we know the latter is correct.

However what I will say is that whatever complexity Loghain had is, imo, most likely the result of an accident and not something Bioware wanted or even recognize. So yes, there is a failure in the writing on numerous levels, but from a purely in-game POV, having a sympathetic interpretation of Loghain was possible and valid.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 janvier 2013 - 06:13 .

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Which argument?

Mine.

Not mine, I've always said from the Warden's POV, his actions were very ambiguous.

I don't think so at all. From the Warden's POV Loghain is very likely the key player behind a play for the throne. Whatever you might make of Loghain's actions is up to you, but to me it seems that there isn't very much reason to be uncertain about what Loghain does. Unless you're using ambiguous to mean something else?

However what I will say is that whatever complexity Loghain had is, imo, most likely the result of an accident and not something Bioware wanted or even recognize. So yes, there is a failure in the writing on numerous levels, but from a purely in-game POV, having a sympathetic interpretation of Loghain was possible and valid.

Sure. I age that you can relate to Loghain, and that how his character came out was an accident (but honestly, I think this is the case for almost all Bioware characters).

My point was more that what Loghain does is not especially intelligent or uncertain, but if people relate to his motives, then certainly Bioware will give them more of that (and, frankly, Meredith was exactly what Loghain was, except her reason for being a loon was amplified by magic, which everyone jumps on).

Modifié par In Exile, 06 janvier 2013 - 07:23 .

[Monica21]

Filament wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

And just recently Gaider brought the hammer down on anyone who dared to spare Loghain because they were betraying Alistair, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It's character whiplash, and this isn't an MMO where you get to make new lore. The lore has been written. Loghain is what he is. Whether his portrayal in Origins is an accident or not, this is the monster BioWare created and this is a big part of the reason why he's still talked about. People who hate him have valid reasons for it. People who don't have just as valid reasons.

You can't take Gaider's comment out of context like that, it really isn't about Loghain's character at all. The frame of reference is Alistair. The crux of his point is that it would be a betrayal from the perspective of Alistair because Alistair blames Loghain for the deaths of Duncan and the Wardens, which is true. He goes a bit further in saying the Warden is selfish and/or arrogant in valuing their narrative over Alistair's and I think he may be off-base for a couple of reasons, though it's something to consider at least, IMO (not to drag this thread back into that debate). But that still isn't about really about Loghain, per se, but about the disagreement between the Warden and Alistair. His focus is on the disagreement itself, not the focus of the disagreement.

You're right, it's not about Loghain's character, but the clear implication was that sparing Loghain made you a false and treacherous friend (which you didn't have to be) or lover (which you didn't have to be either) to Alistair. I think the biggest reason people kill Loghain is because Alistair wants you to. By coming out with such a strongly worded opinion, that is also inherently incorrect about the game since he didn't even remember it being Riordan's suggestion, the implication is that Loghain should be killed because of Alistair. Not because of anything Loghain did, but to keep yourself from, what DG views as, a betrayal.

Such a suggestion not only turns every argument DG has made in favor of Loghain on its head, it's encouragement that yes, Loghain's just a regular old bad guy.

[Addai]

TJPags wrote...
3.  No, come on.  That's history.  That's how it works.  The American Revolution is lauded here in the States because we won.  If we lost, those who led the fight would be considered traitors - they likely still are in England.  That's all I meant there.

To be clear - yes, I WANT complexity.  I don't think I GOT it in Loghain.

High school history, maybe.  To quote one of the good ones: "The older I get the more I’m convinced that it’s the purpose of politicians and journalists to say the world is very simple, whereas it’s the purpose of historians to say, ‘No! It’s very complicated.’" - Sir David Cannadine

And I'm sorry, if you don't think Loghain is complex, that's your own fault.

Modifié par Addai67, 06 janvier 2013 - 09:32 .

[Addai]

Monica21 wrote...

The problem is really that BioWare never seemed to be sure of what they wanted him to be, so of course the audience is going to be confused and divided. First he was the easy to kill villian, but they'd initially mapped out an entire game where Morrigan's suggestion of going straight to Denerim could be accomplished and you got him as a companion really early in-game, hence the Fade sequence. And then a few Loghain threads started popping up and the devs came to his side. No, he wasn't allied with Howe before Ostagar. He had a limited view of the battlefield. He didn't ever plan to kill Eamon. And on and on.

To be fair, even in the oft-quoted thread, Gaider says that people should feel free to discount his opinion and rely only on the game content.

And just recently Gaider brought the hammer down on anyone who dared to spare Loghain because they were betraying Alistair, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It's character whiplash, and this isn't an MMO where you get to make new lore. The lore has been written. Loghain is what he is. Whether his portrayal in Origins is an accident or not, this is the monster BioWare created and this is a big part of the reason why he's still talked about. People who hate him have valid reasons for it. People who don't have just as valid reasons.

I think you're exaggerating a bit.  I read that exchange and thought he was simply defending Alistair's right to feel betrayed by his fellow Warden/ friend/ lover choosing to spare Loghain over his strong objections- not that it actually is a betrayal, objectively.  Let alone "bringing a hammer down."  I recall him saying somewhere that his personal ideal ending is Loghain redeemed.

I cringe at stuff like this because I am always fascinated by the writerly process, and devs being slammed for giving us glimpses into their view of the characters isn't conducive to us ever seeing more of it.

Modifié par Addai67, 06 janvier 2013 - 09:41 .

[TEWR]

Random thought: For Morrigan's quest, let's say I held off on killing Flemeth until I recruited Loghain. Then I took him with me. Does he happen to say anything to her, or vice-versa? I doubt they do, but it just occurred to me -- I'm surprised I didn't think of it in the past.

[nightscrawl]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Random thought: For Morrigan's quest, let's say I held off on killing Flemeth until I recruited Loghain. Then I took him with me. Does he happen to say anything to her, or vice-versa? I doubt they do, but it just occurred to me -- I'm surprised I didn't think of it in the past.

I don't think you are able to complete companion quests after the Landsmeet. At some point in the game your quest log is wiped of any extraneous quests that aren't main plot related.

However, I can answer this for you in a few days. I've got the quest sitting in my log, not completed because I'm trying to earn Morrigan disapproval without being too much of an ass, so I've been holding off. I'll just keep it in there and test it out.

Dabrikishaw wrote...

I just FINALLY realized "Loghain" was misspelled in the title.

Can't unsee >.<. Thanks a lot.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 06 janvier 2013 - 10:53 .

[TEWR]

I don't think you are able to complete companion quests after the Landsmeet. At some point in the game your quest log is wiped of any extraneous quests that aren't main plot related.

I had a few side quests that needed to be done in some of my playthroughs that I either never did or went on to complete.

I'll just keep it in there and test it out.

Thank you. 

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 janvier 2013 - 10:54 .

[Fiacre]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I don't think you are able to complete companion quests after the Landsmeet. At some point in the game your quest log is wiped of any extraneous quests that aren't main plot related.

I had a few side quests that needed to be done in some of my playthroughs that I either never did or went on to complete.

I'll just keep it in there and test it out.

Thank you. 

There isn't anything in the toolset if you go through that conversation, so if it is possible to do that quest after the Landsmeet (though I've heard that it isn't as well, but have never tried it), taking Loghain doesn't do anything. (In fact, the only Loghain specific non main quest dialogue I can remember right now would be his praise at the end of the Soldier's Peak quest and his dialogue in Return to Ostagar.)

[Chewin]

Commander Kurt wrote...
So Duncan was way off? I mean, that's possible, but is that what you're saying?

That's was how I intepreted it, yes. Though I have no clue what you meant with "staying friends with the king".

"He knew what he lost" is not an explanation. The question was why? You're really not answering my questions.

B/c the battle was unwinnable. I've stated this several times already.

He lies about them being traitors to the crown because he saw them as a threat? To make the question clearer; if his retreat was justified, why does he lie about it being because of the wardens?

He didn't justify his retreat b/c of the Wardens, nor do I recall him saying the Orlesians were traitors to the crown. He simply blamed their presence in Ferelden, and was 'relieved' to have them 'gone'. 

He left the army to die in order to have more time for calculations? He was the general, why not calculate it BEFORE ostagar or refuse to go through with the battle if he felt that it needed more calculation?

 

You are basically contradicting yourself here. He stated this during the Landsmeet, as you said yourself, yet now you claim he did it before the Ostagar event. 

It was Cailan who rallied the troops to fight the Darkspawn, not Loghain, which he pressumably saw as a mistake. And it wasn't until the darkspawn showed themselves during the battle that he noticed it was unwinnable.

This is just silly. I'm asking for Loghain's motives for leaving the army to die and your answer is that "war is complex". If you don't know, then that's fine. I don't know either.

In that case, you did a poor job describing that, since from what I gathered you asked what Loghain meant with fighting the Darkspawn 'sensibly' and stated that there where only two options to deal with them.

Loghains motives for leaving the battlefield I have stated several times already: the battle was unwinnable.

The game is about "replacing the army lost at ostagar". And you're not answering the questions.

Yet it never mentions "replacing the entire army". I didn't answer your question since it makes no sense, since the entire army wasn't perished.

So why did he sacrifice the army lost at ostagar?

Oh for Christ's sake.

How are you looking at it, aside from "war is complex" and.. well, that's pretty much the only thing you've given me resembling an answer.

The way I have been describing it in this thread.

Modifié par Chewin3, 06 janvier 2013 - 11:39 .

[Dorrieb]

Monica21 wrote...

The problem is really that BioWare never seemed to be sure of what they wanted him to be...

Oh, I think it's fairly clear. They wanted to pull a Revan, because Bioware (probably Gaider) does love to recycle a trope. The need for a Grey Warden to sacrifice themselves in the end probably originated as a way for Loghain to gain redemption with a hero's death.

Unfortunately he is also the main antagonist for most of the game, and either directly or indirectly responsible for all manner of atrocities that many of us are unwilling to forgive. (Which could also be said of Revan, although at least we don't see Revan's crimes during the game, so it doesn't have quite the same impact.) So we get Arl Howe, the irredeemable baddie who can be scapegoated for the worst of Loghain's crimes, leaving him if not off the hook, at least worthy of redemption. Which is much like what they tried to do with Darth Malak, when you find out who Revan is and everyone forgives you: 'Oh, everyone knows Malak was always the real baddie, Revan was just like, all military super-genius'. Suuure.

(That being said, Tim Curry's Arl Rendon Howe is a million times the villain that Malak was, and my absolute favourite DA character! Much more interesting than Loghain, sorry to his fans.)

What Bioware meant Loghain to be is pretty simple:

tvtropes wrote...

Well-Intentioned Extremist

A villain who has an overall goal which the heroes can appreciate in principle, but whose methods of pursuing said goal (such as mass murder) are problematic; despite any sympathy they may have with his cause, the heroes have no choice but to stop him.

So definitely a villain then (with a shot at redemption in the end). Batman gets a fair share of these. Ra's al-Ghul, for example, has good intentions. Poison Ivy wants to preserve the environment. Mr. Freeze just wants to cure his sick wife. Sometimes you want to say 'Come on, Batman! Would it kill you to let him do a robbery just this once?'

The other main difference between these villains and Loghain is that their extreme methods, if it weren't for Batman, might actually work. Poison Ivy might just save the rainforest by murdering all the developers. Mr. Freeze could cure his wife. We'll never know, because Batman won't give them the chance, but in theory at least they could get results. Loghain though is not just going to criminal extremes to achieve his goals, he is also going about it completely wrong. If the Warden had not stopped him Ferelden would have been destroyed (and in fact nearly was), which is the exact opposite of what he was trying to achieve.

Modifié par Dorrieb, 06 janvier 2013 - 03:56 .

[Monica21]

Addai67 wrote...
I think you're exaggerating a bit.  I read that exchange and thought he was simply defending Alistair's right to feel betrayed by his fellow Warden/ friend/ lover choosing to spare Loghain over his strong objections- not that it actually is a betrayal, objectively.  Let alone "bringing a hammer down."  I recall him saying somewhere that his personal ideal ending is Loghain redeemed.

In my own defense, if Gaider had said that Alistair believes that you're betraying him I would have agreed. I actually did make that statement but he didn't respond to it. I'm not going to quote from a locked thread, but he does call your character a jerk, arrogant, and selfish, and says he would never respect a player who didn't own up to being selfish by whatever betrayal Gaider has himself believing now.

First time in my life I've ever been told off by a game developer for making a choice they gave me.

I cringe at stuff like this because I am always fascinated by the writerly process, and devs being slammed for giving us glimpses into their view of the characters isn't conducive to us ever seeing more of it.

Me too, which is why I was surprised and disappointed by it.

All that to say, sure, I'd love another enemy similar to Loghain, but we won't get one, especially considering Loghain as presented in Origins was entirely an accident.

[Monica21]

Dorrieb wrote...
Oh, I think it's fairly clear. They wanted to pull a Revan, because Bioware (probably Gaider) does love to recycle a trope. The need for a Grey Warden to sacrifice themselves in the end probably originated as a way for Loghain to gain redemption with a hero's death.

I'm not sure if you read my entire post, but there was a lot of internal flip-flopping on what they were going to do with Loghain. Why make him easy to kill if you want to give him the Redeemer ending? The Redeemer ending means you have to spare him. Those don't fit.

Unfortunately he is also the main antagonist for most of the game, and either directly or indirectly responsible for all manner of atrocities that many of us are unwilling to forgive. (Which could also be said of Revan, although at least we don't see Revan's crimes during the game, so it doesn't have quite the same impact.) So we get Arl Howe, the irredeemable baddie who can be scapegoated for the worst of Loghain's crimes, leaving him if not off the hook, at least worthy of redemption. Which is much like what they tried to do with Darth Malak, when you find out who Revan is and everyone forgives you: 'Oh, everyone knows Malak was always the real baddie, Revan was just like, all military super-genius'. Suuure.

I don't know who Revan and Malak are, but the darkspawn are the main antagonists for the entire game.

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...
My point was more that what Loghain does is not especially intelligent or uncertain

I agree that most of his actions are not politically intelligent.
I disagree about the uncertain part, or rather that your interpretation wasn't ever something I held and I didn't need any outside material to not entertain it. My sympathy towards him was not only with regards to motive, but also some of his actions (retreat from Ostagar, alliance with Uldred...etc).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 janvier 2013 - 04:36 .

[Dorrieb]

Monica21 wrote...
I don't know who Revan and Malak are...

There's no need to be sarcastic

... but the darkspawn are the main antagonists for the entire game.

Are they though? Between the battle at Ostagar (the beginning) and the battle at Denerim (the end), name a single major story development involving them.

Modifié par Dorrieb, 06 janvier 2013 - 04:39 .

[Monica21]

Dorrieb wrote...
There's no need to be sarcastic

I don't know who they are so I do not know their relevance to your point.

... but the darkspawn are the main antagonists for the entire game.

Are they though? Between the battle at Ostagar (the beginning) and the battle at Denerim (the end), name a single major story development involving them.

All of act 2 when you have to fulfill the treaties.

Modifié par Monica21, 06 janvier 2013 - 04:42 .

[legbamel]

Monica21 wrote...
The problem is really that BioWare never seemed to be sure of what they wanted him to be, so of course the audience is going to be confused and divided. First he was the easy to kill villian, but they'd initially mapped out an entire game where Morrigan's suggestion of going straight to Denerim could be accomplished and you got him as a companion really early in-game, hence the Fade sequence. And then a few Loghain threads started popping up and the devs came to his side. No, he wasn't allied with Howe before Ostagar. He had a limited view of the battlefield. He didn't ever plan to kill Eamon. And on and on.

And just recently Gaider brought the hammer down on anyone who dared to spare Loghain because they were betraying Alistair, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It's character whiplash, and this isn't an MMO where you get to make new lore. The lore has been written. Loghain is what he is. Whether his portrayal in Origins is an accident or not, this is the monster BioWare created and this is a big part of the reason why he's still talked about. People who hate him have valid reasons for it. People who don't have just as valid reasons.

That's now how I read Gaider's recent comments at all.  To me, he was giving thirty lashes to the people saying Alistair was a moron and that they weren't betraying him by recruiting Loghain so good riddance.  I very much agreed with his points about why Alistair freaks out and leaves, considering what he's seen of Loghain and been through in the game.  Of course, I also think he should have gotten about six blocks before he found a pub, sat down and thought about things, and come back for a rousing argument with the Warden if he was hardened.

ETA that I didn't see him as condemning the people who chose to recruit Loghain, merely those who denied that it was a betrayal of Alistair.  Whatever you think of his character, he was clearly meant to be a close friend by that point and you can utterly dismiss him--yes, for logistically excellent reasons) but that doesn't mean he shouldn't feel betrayed.

Modifié par legbamel, 06 janvier 2013 - 05:49 .

[Monica21]

legbamel wrote...
That's now how I read Gaider's recent comments at all.  To me, he was giving thirty lashes to the people saying Alistair was a moron and that they weren't betraying him by recruiting Loghain so good riddance.  I very much agreed with his points about why Alistair freaks out and leaves, considering what he's seen of Loghain and been through in the game.  Of course, I also think he should have gotten about six blocks before he found a pub, sat down and thought about things, and come back for a rousing argument with the Warden if he was hardened.

ETA that I didn't see him as condemning the people who chose to recruit Loghain, merely those who denied that it was a betrayal of Alistair.  Whatever you think of his character, he was clearly meant to be a close friend by that point and you can utterly dismiss him--yes, for logistically excellent reasons) but that doesn't mean he shouldn't feel betrayed.

This is my last comment on this because that's not what this thread is about, but yes, Alistair does think the PC is betraying him. I've never said otherwise. Whether the PC is betraying him is entirely dependent on how the PC roleplays though. This is the first time your character really has a chance to agree or disagree with Alistair about what to do with Loghain. Alistair spends the entire game assuming you'll do what he wants, so of course he's going to freak out and leave. I have zero problem with Alistair doing that. I think it's in character. I do have a problem with an assumption that my player is either his best friend or lover when the game gives you many options to hate Alistair and for Alistair to hate you in return. I have problems with an in-game decision being offered based on the suggestion of another Warden (which Gaider completely forgot about) being called a betrayal. If Gaider meant your interpretation of his comments, he didn't say it.

Does Alistair think you're betraying him? Yes. Are you betraying him? No.

[Herr Uhl]

Monica21 wrote...

All of act 2 when you have to fulfill the treaties.

The Blight itself is rather static though. All it does is destroy Lothering (from what you can actually percive in game) until the Landsmeet.

The situation doesn't change for a solid 20 hours (YMMW) of game time. And the only antagonist the game focuses on through that time is Loghain.

[Dorrieb]

Monica21 wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...
There's no need to be sarcastic

I don't know who they are so I do not know their relevance to your point.

My mistake.

... but the darkspawn are the main antagonists for the entire game.

Are they though? Between the battle at Ostagar (the beginning) and the battle at Denerim (the end), name a single major story development involving them.

All of act 2 when you have to fulfill the treaties.

Not once are the darkspawn directly involved. There is no town that you have to save from them. No plan of theirs that you must foil. No major victory or defeat against them. They neither oppose nor hinder your actions in any way. Of course they are the reason that you have to fulfill the treaties in the first place, but they don't resurface as antagonists until the battle of Ferelden. 

Presumably the darkspawn aren't sitting still all this time and are doing lots of things off-stage, but the story doesn't follow them. The only action they ever take in your sight (and I had forgotten this) is when they attack your camp, and that's more of a reminder that they are still the real threat, in case you had understandably forgotten.

Please don't be stubborn about this, I know that you understand what the word 'antagonist' means.

[Monica21]

Dorrieb wrote...
Not once are the darkspawn directly involved. There is no town that you have to save from them. No plan of theirs that you must foil. No major victory or defeat against them. They neither oppose nor hinder your actions in any way. Of course they are the reason that you have to fulfill the treaties in the first place, but they don't resurface as antagonists until the battle of Ferelden. 

The bolded is my point. You are a Grey Warden because of the Blight. You fight darkspawn in various places throughout the game, not the least of which is the Deep Roads. No matter your origin, everything that happens to you and everything you are required to do is because there's an Archdemon and because there's a Blight.

Yes, the Archdemon is the bad guy. Should I have said Archdemon instead of darkspawn? The Archdemon is the entire point of the game. Loghain is tangential. The game doesn't end after the Landsmeet, it ends when you kill the Archdemon, regardless of what you do with Loghain.

Even if Loghain had either died at Ostagar or supported the Wardens, it would still be the Warden's job to get backing for the treaties, because they are treaties with the Wardens and not with Ferelden. Take Loghain out of the equation entirely and what you have to doesn't change.

Presumably the darkspawn aren't sitting still all this time and are doing lots of things off-stage, but the story doesn't follow them. The only action they ever take in your sight (and I had forgotten this) is when they attack your camp, and that's more of a reminder that they are still the real threat, in case you had understandably forgotten.

Who forgets this? I mean honestly. Did you think, at some point, that you were getting the treaties to fight Loghain instead of the darkspawn? Really now.

Modifié par Monica21, 06 janvier 2013 - 06:42 .