597 réponses à ce sujet

[Herr Uhl]

Monica21 wrote...

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.

See, the problem is that the game doesn't really mirror this.

[Monica21]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

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.

See, the problem is that the game doesn't really mirror this.

Except that what I described is exactly what happens in-game. So.... what now?

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
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).

I'm not disagreeing that you can appreciate his actions; I just don't understand what you mean by uncertain.

[In Exile]

Monica21 wrote...
All of act 2 when you have to fulfill the treaties.

They're totally irrelevant to Act 2, though. They don't interfere at Redcliffe. Or in Haven. Or at Denerim during the Landsmeet. They appear after you finish the werewolf quest, but you can skip any content seeing them because you can fast travel back. They're also arround as fodder in the Deep Roads, but they're more there than actual antagonists.

They're about as relevant as Loghain, who ambushes you twice.

[Herr Uhl]

Monica21 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

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.

See, the problem is that the game doesn't really mirror this.

Except that what I described is exactly what happens in-game. So.... what now?

Right, lets look at the Origins. The CE, HN, CD and mage origins have nothing to do with darkspawn or the taint. DE is more about mysterious mirrors than darkspawn, and the DN has nothing to do with the blight. It is just dwarves doing what dwarves do.

Now, on to Ostagar. This is the part of the game where the blight can actually be seen and does anything of consequence for the plot other than merely existing. It makes a good case as to why it is bad.

The Brecilian forest has nothing to do with the darkspawn other than random dudes hanging about in the forest. There is no real urgency amongst the elves about the blight.

In Orzammar, nobody cares much for the blight. There is a flash of the Archie flying by in the deep roads, so a B- for actually referencing that the blight and archdemon exists.

Redcliffe has nothing to do with the blight, but plenty to do with Loghain. So that is a point for Loghain rather than the blight.

Haven is just haven. It has nothing to do with anything.

The circle has little to do with the blight, the only reference you get is Duncan showing up in a horribly transparent dream and inexplicable ogres in the fade.

Then we go on to the landsmeet, blight is brought up, but is hardly the antagonist. Loghain all the way.

Up until now the blight has moved from Ostagar to Lothering, and then we have the archie getting to Denerim all of a sudden.

The game as a whole does a bad job at portraying the blight as an urgent threat, there are more urgent threats everywhere you go, which doesn't make much sense. Nobody decides that the blight is the most important thing to focus on other than the damn PC, while the blight is raging.

[In Exile]

Monica21 wrote...
Does Alistair think you're betraying him? Yes. Are you betraying him? No.

Even if you hate him you're still betraying him. You're just all gleefully happy about it.

[Dorrieb]

Monica21 wrote...

Yes, the Archdemon is the bad guy. Should I have said Archdemon instead of darkspawn? The Archdemon is the entire point of the game.

Oh, okay. Monica, the 'Antagonist' is the character that opposes the 'Protagonist' in achieving her goals. The Antagonist hinders the Protagonist's actions, thus creating conflict and therefore story. In this case, the Grey Warden is the protagonist (I really hope you're not going to argue that!). Loghain opposes the Grey Warden. Therefore, Loghain is the antagonist.

'Antagonist' is not the same as 'bad guy'. No offense, but you're arguing with terms that I don't think you're entirely familiar with.

[In Exile]

Dorrieb wrote...
Loghain opposes the Grey Warden. Therefore, Loghain is the antagonist.

Loghain is an antagonist. But he's not the only one. And if you play the HN, I'd argue that Howe feels like a much bigger antagonist to in the Ferelden civil war plotline. 

Anyway, Loghain is only relevant for the civil war plotline and otherwise isn't around, so I woldn't say he's more of an antagonist than the blight as a force of nature.

[Monica21]

Dorrieb wrote...
'Antagonist' is not the same as 'bad guy'. No offense, but you're arguing with terms that I don't think you're entirely familiar with.

Cud u ues smallr wrods? I dunt unnerstan.

You tell me how the Archdemon is not your adversary, and I'll agree with you.

[Dorrieb]

Monica21 wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...
'Antagonist' is not the same as 'bad guy'. No offense, but you're arguing with terms that I don't think you're entirely familiar with.

Cud u ues smallr wrods? I dunt unnerstan.

You tell me how the Archdemon is not your adversary, and I'll agree with you.

'Adversary' and 'Antagonist' are different words.

[Dorrieb]

In Exile wrote...

Dorrieb wrote...
Loghain opposes the Grey Warden. Therefore, Loghain is the antagonist.

Loghain is an antagonist. But he's not the only one. And if you play the HN, I'd argue that Howe feels like a much bigger antagonist to in the Ferelden civil war plotline. 

Quite.

[Monica21]

Herr Uhl wrote...
Right, lets look at the Origins. The CE, HN, CD and mage origins have nothing to do with darkspawn or the taint. DE is more about mysterious mirrors than darkspawn, and the DN has nothing to do with the blight. It is just dwarves doing what dwarves do.

Without the Blight, Duncan wouldn't be there to recruit you.

Now, on to Ostagar. This is the part of the game where the blight can actually be seen and does anything of consequence for the plot other than merely existing. It makes a good case as to why it is bad.

The Brecilian forest has nothing to do with the darkspawn other than random dudes hanging about in the forest. There is no real urgency amongst the elves about the blight.

In Orzammar, nobody cares much for the blight. There is a flash of the Archie flying by in the deep roads, so a B- for actually referencing that the blight and archdemon exists.

Redcliffe has nothing to do with the blight, but plenty to do with Loghain. So that is a point for Loghain rather than the blight.

Haven is just haven. It has nothing to do with anything.

The circle has little to do with the blight, the only reference you get is Duncan showing up in a horribly transparent dream and inexplicable ogres in the fade.

Treaty
Treaty
Treaty
Treaty

The game as a whole does a bad job at portraying the blight as an urgent threat, there are more urgent threats everywhere you go, which doesn't make much sense. Nobody decides that the blight is the most important thing to focus on other than the damn PC, while the blight is raging.

And Loghain is portrayed as "an urgent threat"?

[In Exile]

Monica21 wrote...
You tell me how the Archdemon is not your adversary, and I'll agree with you.

IMO, the archdemon is an antagonist, but it's actually hard to feel it's an adversary because it doesn't do anything the entire game. You get that one ambush, but it doesn't feel like it's hunting you, even though you're the only thing that can kill it, and are doing a fine job of getting an army to do it.

[In Exile]

Monica21 wrote...
Treaty

That's the plot MacGuffin, but (i) that treaty is totally irrelevant, and most of the time isn't even used (except when it gets you into Orzammar) and (ii) it's what gives you a reason to go to that place instead of elsewhere, but none of that makes the blight the force oposed to the protagonist, because in every treaty quest you're running fetch quests and solving whatever drama is currently happening in that place.

[Herr Uhl]

What I'm arguing is that the blight isn't portrayed as something that needs to be dealt with. Loghain is merely one of the many things that are more urgent.

The Blight is a backdrop more than an antagonist.

[LobselVith8]

legbamel wrote...

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. 

I think the contention comes from the fact that Gaider said that there was "an element of selfishness" on the part of the player for betraying Alistair by sparing Loghain at the Landsmeet. You can read the entire comment at the link, but the issue that caused disagreement with fans was his last paragraph:

David Gaider wrote...

That is, however, simply my opinion. Regardless of what I intended when I wrote him, people will add their own interpretations to it, and more power to them. I just simply will never respect the person who doesn't own up to the fact that there was an element of selfishness on their own part in betraying Alistair as well.

As I said at the time, I don't see what's selfish about conscripting Loghain into the Wardens, when it's repeatedly mentioned that only Wardens can stop the Archdemon (especially when Riordian recommends that Loghain be spared). And I think it stands as a testament to the character that people are still willing to debate their view on the character years after Origins was released, whether they like or dislike Loghain.

Personally, I think that Inquisition would benefit from a character as complex and interesting as Loghain was. Even though I disagree strongly with his actions towards the elves in the Alienage, he was certainly someone who was trying his best to save Ferelden, and he will admit his failings to The Warden (which is why he's willing to sacrifice his life to defeat the Archdemon, to atone for his mistakes). The Wardens are willing to do whatever is necessary to stop the Blight, even doing some extreme things (as Alistair admits at Ostagar to the protagonist) - no different than Loghain's mindset at the time of Origins.

Whether the Inquisitor will face a similiar situation, or an equally interesting character (or antagonist) remains to be seen.

[Monica21]

Herr Uhl wrote...

What I'm arguing is that the blight isn't portrayed as something that needs to be dealt with. Loghain is merely one of the many things that are more urgent.

The Blight is a backdrop more than an antagonist.

I could not disagree with you more. The only reason there is a game is because of the Archdemon and the Blight. Again, you can take Loghain out of the game and your goals don't change. If you take the Blight out of the game, then there is no game.

[Monica21]

In Exile wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
Treaty

That's the plot MacGuffin, but (i) that treaty is totally irrelevant, and most of the time isn't even used (except when it gets you into Orzammar) and (ii) it's what gives you a reason to go to that place instead of elsewhere, but none of that makes the blight the force oposed to the protagonist, because in every treaty quest you're running fetch quests and solving whatever drama is currently happening in that place.

You realize that the only reason you get support from these four groups is because you have the treaty, right? The leader of each group acknowledges it and knows they have to fulfill their pledge.

[upsettingshorts]

They don't honor the treaty just because. They honor it because you have to do something else for them.

The Templar and Werewolf alternatives are a pretty good example of this, seeing as neither has any treaty obligations but will help you in return for services rendered.

Treaties in general are gotten-out-from-under-of all the time. For example the United States decided it wasn't obligated to come to the aid of the French Republic because its alliance was with Louis XVI.

Seeing as the Warden treaties were signed by people and governments long dead, at most they get the Wardens' foot in the door. But they are, in essence, a plot coupon redeemable for entry to three theme parks in Thedas.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 janvier 2013 - 08:02 .

[In Exile]

Monica21 wrote...
You realize that the only reason you get support from these four groups is because you have the treaty, right? The leader of each group acknowledges it and knows they have to fulfill their pledge.

No. The leader acknowledges (i) that you are a GW; (ii) that there is a blight. At that point, some of them recognize that the treaty compells them to fight in a blight, but just like Eamon doesn't need a treaty to oppose the Blight, frankly, neither would the mages or templars (in fact, when you think about it, how the hell can mages even sign a treaty to begin with?).

So what you really have a re the Dalish and Dwarves who go along with it - but again, once you prove you're a GW and there's a blight you have to be a moron to not help. And if you didn't want to help, the treaty is just irrelevant paper. It has no magical force of cumpulsion.

[Monica21]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

They don't honor the treaty just because. They honor it because you have to do something else for them.

The Templar and Werewolf alternatives are a pretty good example of this, seeing as neither has any treaty obligations but will help you in return for services rendered.

Treaties in general are gotten-out-from-under-of all the time. For example the United States decided it wasn't obligated to come to the aid of the French Republic because its alliance was with Louis XVI.

Seeing as the Warden treaties were signed by people and governments long dead, at most they get the Wardens' foot in the door. But they are, in essence, a plot coupon redeemable for entry to three theme parks in Thedas.

They don't honor it because they can't. And sure, they can refuse, but they don't. They ask for your help to put them in a position to help you.

[Dorrieb]

Monica21 wrote...
Treaty
Treaty
Treaty
Treaty

Again, an antagonist is one who actually does something to hinder the protagonist. 

The Archdemon does not:

• Do anything to prevent you from recruiting the dwarves.
• Place any obstacles in your recruitment of the mages.
• Try to stop you from recruiting the dalish.
• Take measures against Arl Eamon.
• Send assassins to kill you.
• Put a bounty on your head.
• Declare you a traitor.

In fact, the Archdemon does not do ANYTHING specifically with the purpose of stopping the Warden or place ANY obstacles in her path. I understand that you're angry, even though I said 'no offense', but it can't be helped if you insist on using words to mean what they don't mean.

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

You realize that the only reason you get support from these four groups is because you have the treaty, right? The leader of each group acknowledges it and knows they have to fulfill their pledge. 

No. The leader acknowledges (i) that you are a GW; (ii) that there is a blight. At that point, some of them recognize that the treaty compells them to fight in a blight, but just like Eamon doesn't need a treaty to oppose the Blight, frankly, neither would the mages or templars (in fact, when you think about it, how the hell can mages even sign a treaty to begin with?).

This issue is brought up by the mage protagonist to Alistair (when they enter Lothering and discuss the different places they need to go), who asks what they are going to do about the treaty with the Circle of Ferelden since the Circle of Magi will do what the Chantry tells them to do (as opposed to what the treaty demand that they do, which is what is inferred by the mage protagonist).

In Exile wrote...

So what you really have a re the Dalish and Dwarves who go along with it - but again, once you prove you're a GW and there's a blight you have to be a moron to not help. 

Like the nobles in the Chamber of the Assembly?

[Addai]

That quote from Gaider is confusing, to be sure. If that's true then you'd have to say any choice you make in the game is selfish, and even the wording of the dialogue is the Warden agreeing with Riordan rather than saying "we're going to do this because I say so."

[Addai]

Dorrieb wrote...
Send assassins to kill you.

He does, actually.  After the 3rd treaty quest, the camp is attacked right after the Warden and Alistair have dreamt that the archdemon saw them, and in the Dalish origin it's clear that the attack is pretty personal.

By your measure Loghain isn't an antagonist, either, because he only twice directly strikes at the Warden and sending Zevran wasn't his idea.  I think the discussion is a bit silly to be honest.  Of course the darkspawn are antagonists, as well as Loghain.

Modifié par Addai67, 06 janvier 2013 - 08:19 .