597 réponses à ce sujet

[Sol Downer]

XX-Pyro wrote...

Ultimashade wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

You mean like the Arishok?

Noooooo, come on, man! Read the title of the thread!

I guess the Arishok wasn't human... but he was similar to Loghain in that we could let him go, fight him 1v1, fight his whole crew. We had so many outcomes with him and he was written incredibly well in my opinion. Loghain was a terrible villain unless you purchased and read The Stolen Throne, which gives him a bit more background and makes him semi likeable. 

The same can be said with Cassandra for me. Hated her in DA2 because she was being a needless **** when it wasn't necessary and Varric was willing to help, but after watching the movie I liked her a lot as a character and hope we see her in DA:I.

I think he means similar in a different way than what you've listed...if not, then excuse me. 

[XX-Pyro]

Ultimashade wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

Ultimashade wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

You mean like the Arishok?

Noooooo, come on, man! Read the title of the thread!

I guess the Arishok wasn't human... but he was similar to Loghain in that we could let him go, fight him 1v1, fight his whole crew. We had so many outcomes with him and he was written incredibly well in my opinion. Loghain was a terrible villain unless you purchased and read The Stolen Throne, which gives him a bit more background and makes him semi likeable. 

The same can be said with Cassandra for me. Hated her in DA2 because she was being a needless **** when it wasn't necessary and Varric was willing to help, but after watching the movie I liked her a lot as a character and hope we see her in DA:I.

I think he means similar in a different way than what you've listed...if not, then excuse me. 

Perhaps, but his post said where we have to think about killing them, so I assumed that is what he meant. If I'm wrong, excuse my posts, although I still think the Arishok written far superiorly.

[TheBlackAdder13]

I don't want another villain similar to Loghain, as that would be redundant and lazy writing, but I do want other well-written villains. I think the Architect and the Arishok were both as well written as Loghain. Meredith had the potential to approach that level of writing mastery but, as with many other aspects of DA 2, her character was poorly implemented -- we didn't see enough personal nuances to justify her paranoia. We were told about it but the specific examples we saw were limited but some of the best Meredith moments are the rare occasion she genuinely shows remorse for what she thinks she must do (a nice contrast from Loghain, who never showed remorse), such as when she pushes for the right of anulment and, if challenged by pointing out all the innocent victims, she says "I know, and it breaks my heart to do it." Unfortunately, these moments and two-dimensional aspects of her character weren't fleshed out enough and the fact that they relied on the red lyrium as a deus ex machania to drive her insane for purely supernatural reasons, really detracted from her character and cheapened the climax of the game.

If Flemeth or Morrigan turn out to be primary antagonists, they may very well be the most compelling villains yet.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

If they want a character similar to Loghain then they'll use Loghain not make a Loghain version 2.0.

Modifié par DarkKnightHolmes, 28 décembre 2012 - 09:07 .

[Fiacre]

XX-Pyro wrote...

Ultimashade wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

You mean like the Arishok?

Noooooo, come on, man! Read the title of the thread!

I guess the Arishok wasn't human... but he was similar to Loghain in that we could let him go, fight him 1v1, fight his whole crew. We had so many outcomes with him and he was written incredibly well in my opinion. Loghain was a terrible villain unless you purchased and read The Stolen Throne, which gives him a bit more background and makes him semi likeable. 

The same can be said with Cassandra for me. Hated her in DA2 because she was being a needless **** when it wasn't necessary and Varric was willing to help, but after watching the movie I liked her a lot as a character and hope we see her in DA:I.

I still haven't read The Stolen Throne and find Loghain to be far, far more likeable than the Arishok. And while there are other reasons than likeability for that, I never kill Loghain, while I also never consider letting the Arishok go and handing Isabela (if she does return in the first place -- which, admittedly, she usually does) over.

[XX-Pyro]

Fiacre wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

Ultimashade wrote...

XX-Pyro wrote...

You mean like the Arishok?

Noooooo, come on, man! Read the title of the thread!

I guess the Arishok wasn't human... but he was similar to Loghain in that we could let him go, fight him 1v1, fight his whole crew. We had so many outcomes with him and he was written incredibly well in my opinion. Loghain was a terrible villain unless you purchased and read The Stolen Throne, which gives him a bit more background and makes him semi likeable. 

The same can be said with Cassandra for me. Hated her in DA2 because she was being a needless **** when it wasn't necessary and Varric was willing to help, but after watching the movie I liked her a lot as a character and hope we see her in DA:I.

I still haven't read The Stolen Throne and find Loghain to be far, far more likeable than the Arishok. And while there are other reasons than likeability for that, I never kill Loghain, while I also never consider letting the Arishok go and handing Isabela (if she does return in the first place -- which, admittedly, she usually does) over.

It isn't about likability in terms of a good villain, you shouldn't like them but you should understand them. Loghain had absolutely no logical reason for betraying the king besides gaining more power for himself. This isn't a greatly written antagonist. After reading TST, I still don't really see a reason for him to betray Cailan, however I do see a character that I can empathize with after all he's been through in his life. Problem is, if you're going to make a character a villain, make sure you explain him/her well enough in the game that I don't have to fall back on other media to understand them.

The Arishok on the other hand, I understood his reasons for attacking Kirkwall, and quite frankly, I sort of agreed with them. The city is a damn mess. That being said I still enjoy killing him in single combat every time- too poetic of a chance to pass up.

[Dorrieb]

Ultimashade wrote...
I agree completely. As a plus, he's a badass father-in-law to the Cousland Warden

Considering what he did to his last son-in-law, I'm not sure that's such a great thing. One little disagreement over policy and you'd be constantly looking over your shoulder!

[Fiacre]

XX-Pyro wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

I still haven't read The Stolen Throne and find Loghain to be far, far more likeable than the Arishok. And while there are other reasons than likeability for that, I never kill Loghain, while I also never consider letting the Arishok go and handing Isabela (if she does return in the first place -- which, admittedly, she usually does) over.

It isn't about likability in terms of a good villain, you shouldn't like them but you should understand them. Loghain had absolutely no logical reason for betraying the king besides gaining more power for himself. This isn't a greatly written antagonist. After reading TST, I still don't really see a reason for him to betray Cailan, however I do see a character that I can empathize with after all he's been through in his life. Problem is, if you're going to make a character a villain, make sure you explain him/her well enough in the game that I don't have to fall back on other media to understand them.

The Arishok on the other hand, I understood his reasons for attacking Kirkwall, and quite frankly, I sort of agreed with them. The city is a damn mess. That being said I still enjoy killing him in single combat every time- too poetic of a chance to pass up.

...I also never had much trouble understanding Loghain. I mean, sure, my first impression was thta he was a treacherous bastard, but then I saw the other scenes with him, thought about it for a while and started to understand him and felt terrible about killing him the first time, and have never done it since.

It probably helps that I don't think of Ostagar as a betrayal but a tactical retreat, but that's something that's been debated to death. In any case, I find him more understandable than the Arishok, but that's more about my feelings regarding the Qunari -- terribly fascinating culture, but I find it difficult to understand why'd you want to follow something like the Qun.

(I also don't dislike the Arishok; I just like Loghain a lot more. the arishok is cool. Being his rival is fun; I just wish Isabela coming back wouldn't result in the duel even if you did stuff like killing the delegates, telling the Viscount to burn the bodies, saving Petrice and telling the Arisho that sure, you totally murdered his men. Dear Arishok -- why in the world would you find me worthy of respect after all that? Seriously.)


Incidentally, he is a pretty cool father-in-law for my canon Warden. Telling the Warden he did well when you retake Soldier's Peak? That cameo in Awakening? Awesome. And some of the stuff he say when you convince him to sleep with Morrigan is quite sweet.

[TheBlackAdder13]

It isn't about likability in terms of a good villain, you shouldn't like them but you should understand them. Loghain had absolutely no logical reason for betraying the king besides gaining more power for himself. This isn't a greatly written antagonist. After reading TST, I still don't really see a reason for him to betray Cailan, however I do see a character that I can empathize with after all he's been through in his life. Problem is, if you're going to make a character a villain, make sure you explain him/her well enough in the game that I don't have to fall back on other media to understand them.

The Arishok on the other hand, I understood his reasons for attacking Kirkwall, and quite frankly, I sort of agreed with them. The city is a damn mess. That being said I still enjoy killing him in single combat every time- too poetic of a chance to pass up.

Loghain had plenty of reasons to kill Cailin and, judging by the fact that it's his best friend's son and his daughter's husband, I doubt it's a decision he made lightly. He realizes the futility of the Battle at Ostagar, which could have been feasible if they  had waited for the Orlesian Chevaliers. However, Loghain does not trust the Orlesians due to the occupation and suspects that they'll use the opportunity to take over a war torn and battled Ferelden once again, especially because he does not believe it's a real blight and that the Grey Wardens were lying to establish their own political interests and control the kingdom like Sophia Dryden before the wardens were exiled from Ferelden. As a result, his increasing paranoia leads him to suspect that they're working with Orlais. His paranoia of an Orlesian reconquest may even have been partially justified as we are now seeing that Empress Celene is under a lot of pressure from dissident nobles to retake Ferelden and re-expand the empire, so much that they're now fighting a civil war, largely around this issue. Lastly, he also (correctly) suspects that Cailin is engaged in an affair with Empress Celene and plans to marry her, placing Ferelden once again under Orlesian control when he dies (the fact that it's his daughter's husbands may have given him more personal motiviations but I suspect a utilitarian like Loghain was more concerend with the political implications than his family issues). 

I'm not saying this justifies what Loghain did but his actions all have clear, if somewhat deluded, motivations. It also extends to more minor plotlines. For example, he also tends to be anti-chantry and pro-mage due to the fact that the chantry often has to act as a political arm of the Orlesian Empire and constantly justified and supported the Orlesian oppression in Fereleden. Hence, he supports and conspires with Uldred and the libertarians to free the mages of circle/chantry rule, conspires with a chantry prisoner/blood mage to posion his chief political opponent, and is willing to make extremely unscrupulous deals with Tevinter mages to fundraise his plots and campaign against the Darkspawn and dissenting Ferelden nobles. 

Modifié par TheBlackAdder13, 28 décembre 2012 - 11:40 .

[alex90c]

Making another Loghain would require Bioware to make an antagonist who wasn't braindead.

Now while I would like another Loghain, it'll never happen.

[TEWR]

alex90c wrote...

Making another Loghain would require Bioware to make an antagonist who wasn't braindead.

Now while I would like another Loghain, it'll never happen.

This.

Loghain had absolutely no logical reason for betraying the king besides gaining more power for himself.

Aside from the fact that the battle was unwinnable because Darkspawn were continuously pouring out of the Wilds, Cailan ruined Loghain's proposed plan by charging out into the open (thus exposing their left and right flanks), Cailan's men were cracking under pressure, and because the beacon was lit far too late -- never mind how it was inaccurate since it was supposed to tell Loghain when all of the Darkspawn were in the valley so he could charge.

Nope! Those certainly aren't logical reasons for issuing a tactical retreat, like any decent general plans for.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 29 décembre 2012 - 12:02 .

[TheBlackAdder13]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Loghain had absolutely no logical reason for betraying the king besides gaining more power for himself.

Aside from the fact that the battle was unwinnable because Darkspawn were continuously pouring out of the Wilds, Cailan ruined Loghain's proposed plan by charging out into the open (thus exposing their left and right flanks), Cailan's men were cracking under pressure, and because the beacon was lit far too late -- never mind how it was inaccurate since it was supposed to tell Loghain when all of the Darkspawn were in the valley so he could charge.

Nope! Those certainly aren't logical reasons for issuing a tactical retreat, like any decent general plans for.

I think labelling it a tactical retreat makes it far too black and white. Loghain's men were suspiciously guarding the tower before the battle and refuse entry to everyone else and I was led to believe that they were digging under the tower to let darkspawn in so as to intentionally prevent the signal from getting lit, giving him a convenient pretext not to charge. The interactions between Loghain and Ser Cautharin in the cut scene support this. Loghain wanted Cailin and the Grey Wardens to die in the battle and considered the men fighting with them a neccesarry sacrifice. 

[Sol Downer]

TheBlackAdder13 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Loghain had absolutely no logical reason for betraying the king besides gaining more power for himself.

Aside from the fact that the battle was unwinnable because Darkspawn were continuously pouring out of the Wilds, Cailan ruined Loghain's proposed plan by charging out into the open (thus exposing their left and right flanks), Cailan's men were cracking under pressure, and because the beacon was lit far too late -- never mind how it was inaccurate since it was supposed to tell Loghain when all of the Darkspawn were in the valley so he could charge.

Nope! Those certainly aren't logical reasons for issuing a tactical retreat, like any decent general plans for.

I think labelling it a tactical retreat makes it far too black and white. Loghain's men were suspiciously guarding the tower before the battle and refuse entry to everyone else and I was led to believe that they were digging under the tower to let darkspawn in so as to intentionally prevent the signal from getting lit, giving him a convenient pretext not to charge. The interactions between Loghain and Ser Cautharin in the cut scene support this. Loghain wanted Cailin and the Grey Wardens to die in the battle and considered the men fighting with them a neccesarry sacrifice. 

You'd figure out if you gathered a little more info that he didn't know about the darkspawn digging their way through the tower. The darkspawn dug that hole. It's what they do!

Modifié par Ultimashade, 29 décembre 2012 - 12:19 .

[TheBlackAdder13]

Ultimashade wrote...

TheBlackAdder13 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Loghain had absolutely no logical reason for betraying the king besides gaining more power for himself.

Aside from the fact that the battle was unwinnable because Darkspawn were continuously pouring out of the Wilds, Cailan ruined Loghain's proposed plan by charging out into the open (thus exposing their left and right flanks), Cailan's men were cracking under pressure, and because the beacon was lit far too late -- never mind how it was inaccurate since it was supposed to tell Loghain when all of the Darkspawn were in the valley so he could charge.

Nope! Those certainly aren't logical reasons for issuing a tactical retreat, like any decent general plans for.

I think labelling it a tactical retreat makes it far too black and white. Loghain's men were suspiciously guarding the tower before the battle and refuse entry to everyone else and I was led to believe that they were digging under the tower to let darkspawn in so as to intentionally prevent the signal from getting lit, giving him a convenient pretext not to charge. The interactions between Loghain and Ser Cautharin in the cut scene support this. Loghain wanted Cailin and the Grey Wardens to die in the battle and considered the men fighting with them a neccesarry sacrifice. 

You'd figure out if you gathered a little more info that he didn't know about the darkspawn digging their way through the tower. The darkspawn dug that hole. It's what they do!

What evidence or "info" do you have to support this? 

[Faust1979]

There really is no reason to spare Loghain the guy is trash except to make things a tad different.

[TEWR]

I think labelling it a tactical retreat makes it far too black and white. Loghain's men were suspiciously guarding the tower before the battle and refuse entry to everyone else and I was led to believe that they were digging under the tower to let darkspawn in so as to intentionally prevent the signal from getting lit, giving him a convenient pretext not to charge.

No.

His men were guarding the tower because he had just discovered it and they were exploring the lower levels and securing the actual tower.

Ignoring how Bioware ****ed up their portrayal of him as a competent general by having him be in the dark about Ostagar's layout for 19 years -- when it's known that he seeks to know where his borders end and how best to defend them -- he wasn't making it so the Darkspawn could invade.

David Gaider has said he wasn't helping them. In addition, remember the Darkspawn had an Ogre with them and that the Darkspawn dig as part of what they do. An Ogre is a living siege weapon for the Darkspawn and the Ogre created the hole in the Tower.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 29 décembre 2012 - 12:44 .

[Fiacre]

Faust1979 wrote...

There really is no reason to spare Loghain the guy is trash except to make things a tad different.

there is every reason! On the other hand, there really is no reason to spare Alistair. The guy is trash except to make things a tad different.

...Oh wait. You have heard of grey morality? Different interpretations, like Loghain making a tactical retreat rather than being a traitor? No, really, there are reasons to spare Loghain. You might not see them as enough to do so depending on your interpretation of events, but they are there.

(I wonder what it says about me that the only thing that Loghain did that bothers me more than Alistair calling Morrigan a ****, telling her to go and die, trying to guiltrip the Warden, his prejudice towards mages and his general attitude when you do things he doesn't like is the whole slavery thing? ...Which would probably be because that's pretty much the only thing Loghain did that really bothers me in the first place. Hmm.)

[Ruairi46]

Im the most die hard fan of Loghain ever (Spelt Loghain) I really want to see him revisited for the people who spared him. See how he has influenced and effected the grey wardens, also to see his reaction to the orlesions.

[slimgrin]

Chances are, no. Bioware blew their wad on that guy. Expect more cheesy one-dimensional bad guys. If you're lucky, you'll get a tainted child ala ME3.

[Direwolf0294]

I didn't really like Loghain. His whole motivation seemed to be that he's really, really stupid.

An undead demon army has risen and plans to take over the world? Better kill off a large part of the kingdoms army and an entire group whose very reason for existence is stopping the undead demon army. I can't possibly see anything wrong with this plan.

- Loghain, after being hit in the head too many times.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Ultimashade wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Shenrai wrote...

So when I have the choice of saving him or killing him... I actually think about it.

So what is your reason for sparing him? I mean I see lots of reasons for executing him but none for sparing him, seriously somebody please tell me what it is they believe made Loghain such a great villian because I am honestly drawing a blank here.

I liked Loghian, he may have betrayed me, but he was a worthy opponent and I respected him for his ability to survive and thrive under pressure from nobels, darkspawn, and me. He was a highly trained warrior, a leader of men, and a commander of an army. He inspired loyalty quite easily, and he was pretty smart. Not just smart, he was a genius, on and off the battlefield. His actions were reprehensible, yes, and he may not deserve life, but he would be useful to my cause. Far more useful than Alistar, who was on the throne at the time.

I never read the books so perhaps those qualities are more evident in the books than they are in game but to me it looked like Loghain was only in the story because the writers at Bioware decided that the game needed a more human antagonist along side the faceless Archdemon. From the information we are given in game we are supposed to believe that Loghain was supposedly a somewhat competent strategist and a patriot but what we saw in game were the actions of neither a patriot nor a competent strategist, in fact there seemed to be little reason for most of his actions other than for the writers to make it clear that Loghain is the antagonist and you should hate him.

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Shenrai wrote...

So when I have the choice of saving him or killing him... I actually think about it.

So what is your reason for sparing him? I mean I see lots of reasons for executing him but none for sparing him, seriously somebody please tell me what it is they believe made Loghain such a great villian because I am honestly drawing a blank here.

His relatable personality was part of it, if you ask me. With good verbal skills, you could learn that a lot of what he did was him freaking out in honest fear that his nation would be overrun (either by Darkspawn or political enemies), his daughter taken from him in a variety of ways (or running away, even), or simple erratic paranoia. He was a relatable character because, in tramatic and stressful times, a lot of us have been known to do bad things with good intentions. It's kind of the human way.

He made a great villain because, despite thinking he was a backstabbing lunatic the entire time I was fighting him, it was when I had the chance to talk to him that I found I might just have done the same thing in his shoes.

But he was a backstabbing lunatic, the fact that the writers tried to give him "good intentions" only made the character more laughable. Loghains actions might have been more convincing if he was merely a selfish bastard using the Darkspawn chaos to make a bid for power but the fact the writers tried to make out that Loghain was only doing what he thought was best for the country reeks of bad writing.

But ok, you pull your army back from a real threat to the south (leaving the king to die in the process) to focus on an imaginary threat to the west which in turn allows the Darkspawn to roam unopposed over Fereldan destroying every village they come across and murdering its inhabitants, you send a blood mage to poison Arl Eamon because why the hell not? And then you think "Hmm, I am not convinced the player thinks I am evil enough. I know, lets sell the elves to the Tevinter Imperium as slaves" because you are not only a bastard but a racist too. Are these really the actions you would have performed had you been in Loghains shoes? Do you really think that these are the actions of a man who is only doing what he thinks is best for his country?

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Ultimashade wrote...

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Shenrai wrote...

So when I have the choice of saving him or killing him... I actually think about it.

So what is your reason for sparing him? I mean I see lots of reasons for executing him but none for sparing him, seriously somebody please tell me what it is they believe made Loghain such a great villian because I am honestly drawing a blank here.

His relatable personality was part of it, if you ask me. With good verbal skills, you could learn that a lot of what he did was him freaking out in honest fear that his nation would be overrun (either by Darkspawn or political enemies), his daughter taken from him in a variety of ways (or running away, even), or simple erratic paranoia. He was a relatable character because, in tramatic and stressful times, a lot of us have been known to do bad things with good intentions. It's kind of the human way.

He made a great villain because, despite thinking he was a backstabbing lunatic the entire time I was fighting him, it was when I had the chance to talk to him that I found I might just have done the same thing in his shoes.

I agree completely. As a plus, he's a badass father-in-law to the Cousland Warden

Better hope he is a better father-in-law to the Warden than he was to Cailan.