597 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Says the person who first brought up the notion of "Otherwise this is just bad writing" when he was told Word of God absolved Loghain of being complicit in the Couslands' deaths.

Pot calling the kettle black.

I didn't say it wasn't cannon; I just said that if it was cannon it was stupid. I don't disbelieve it.

Also a case of pot calling the kettle black. You tell me that I'm only disagreeing with Word of God because it's convenient for me, yet when you were told Word of God proved Loghain innocent you dispute it because it's convenient for you.

I'm not disagreeing with it. I'm saying it stupid. We have two explanations here: either Loghain and Howe are both idiots, or they're scheming and evil and not idiots. I'm happy to say that they're both idiots - but you seem to be unwilling to do that, so I was giving them benefit of the doubt.

I'm disputing it because the things Bioware wrote in-game and the things David Gaider said on here do not mesh together. They contradict each other.

That's called bad writting. But if we got down that avenue - which I already had when I mentioend my 'best explanation' then the sensible solution to the contradiction is that Loghain and Howe schemed toghether. Beucase the other explanation is that they're both idiots.

You're just going "This is right, because it's the only logical explanation" when there's absolutely nothing in-game to support the idea other then.... well...

There's lots in-game to support the idea. But apparently DG rejected it in favour of Howe being an idiot.

That's your evidence? Similar viewpoints on Cailan?

Oh, we're playing that game where this isn't a narrative and literary tricks don't count. Okay, sure, let's do that one.

Then we get back to Howe is an idiot beyond belief, and Loghain is an even bigger idiot for getting in bed with someone whose plan is to get executed for treason by Cailain, or both were scheming toghether.

Edit:

To be serious for a moment, what we see is that Howe is a coward, he's opportunistic, and he's an bootlicker. He wouldn't have waged open war against the entire nation of Ferelden and killed a Teyrn without backing. Look at his plan to marry his daughter to the younger Cousland. That's a sensible political move, and it brings him above his station (and if Fergus doesn't inherit, then his line has gets an heir to Highever through his grandchildren).

These are all the moves of an opportunist. Nothing at all in his character indicates that the sort of insanity that an attack on Highever indicates is at all what he would do.

Never said it'd be Loghain's idea.

In my view, Anora would come up with the idea while Loghain would provide the military insurance to apprehend Howe.

Whatever fan-fiction you want to write is your business.

Modifié par In Exile, 01 janvier 2013 - 07:14 .

[Dorrieb]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I dunno. I'm not too savvy on how nobles betraying liege lords in real life played out and was justified enough to not warrant a trip to the hangman's noose.

I am, a bit. The barons hold the land for the King, by his authority. Conquering another baron's lands by force of arms is basically taking it from the King, and therefore treason. If you can get the King (or regent) to support your claim, then you can take it by force of arms, as you are basically taking it for the king from someone who suddenly has no right to it. Or it can be legitimised retroactively, if you have the support of the throne.

No king would have stood for anyone flaunting his authority and taking lands from any of his barons, let alone the Couslands who were well liked. The rest of the nobility would not have stood for it either, not only because they liked the Couslands and supported the rule of law, but if this kind of thing were allowed to go unchallenged then none of them would be safe. Anyone with a little ambition and a lot of men at arms could just waltz into their castles, kill their families, and take over. Obviously no country can exist like this. Even in Orlais the Game of backstabbing among nobles is carried out in secret by spies and assassins. You don't just attack a castle and announce 'mine!' and expect to get away with it.

[daft inquisitor]

...I look at what I have created, the destruction and anguish left in the wake of a few careless thoughts, and I think...

...my God, some people will post the stupidest **** when they don't feel like reading solid arguments and responding in kind.

For the record, I love how many times Gandalf has said, "I never heard about this point you made, so it must be a lie." when it was actually something from external sources, codex entries, or things that actually WERE in the game but weren't thrown right into your face.

Anyway, may this topic die and be long buried, because I got tired of reading it on page 4.

[Vaeliorin]

I think people are making the wrong comparison with Loghain and Meredith. A better comparison would be Loghain and Anders. Both do horrible things they think they have to, but they both seem to be not entirely rational. Anders has his whole Justice thing driving him nuts, and Loghain has a completely irrational paranoid fear of Orlais (that's not to say that one shouldn't worry about Orlais, but Loghain's concern goes beyond what's rational to the point that he does absolutely atrocious things because of it.)

That said, I wanted to gut Loghain since I read The Stolen Throne (I still maintain he's the ultimate villain of that book), so I'm not entirely objective.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 02 janvier 2013 - 12:16 .

[Addai]

Plaintiff wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
He had nothing to do with the Cousland massacre, and was poisoning Eamon in order to take him out of the equation for a showdown with Cailan over his (Cailan's) dealings with Orlais.

Oh, well that makes it all okay!

It's totally sensible and not at all morally bankrupt to poison a fellow nobleman and military leader if he disagrees with you on minor points of policy. Especially during a time of war, when he and his forces are very much needed.

My point was not to argue that it made it "okay," but that Loghain was not engaging in a country-wide murdering spree to eliminate his enemies.

@ In Exile:  It might not make sense, but that's what Gaider says happened.  Howe had "witnesses" (no doubt coerced by torture) that Bryce was spying for the Orlesians, so that was how he intended to discredit them.

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...
That doesn't make any sense. This is far beyond stupidity. This is unsurivable execution without any hope of reward. At all. The only possible result here is that Howe gets executed after months of painful torture, and his entire line is possibly snuffed out by the Crown.

You don't know this.  The rule of law in Ferelden is still tenuous, it's basically a feudal state, and if Howe can tip the scales of the Landsmeet then what Cailan wants is irrelevant.  Howe's plans obviously went beyond just Highever, hence he was in Denerim and surrounded by mages by the time Cailan was even dead.  I am guessing he planned to mind control Anora and obviously he already had allies in the Bannorn lined up.

It all falls too neatly into place, I grant you, but since the lead writer says that Loghain wasn't involved, that's the way it is.

[Addai]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I think people are making the wrong comparison with Loghain and Meredith. A better comparison would be Loghain and Anders. Both do horrible things they think they have to, but they both seem to be not entirely rational. Anders has his whole Justice thing driving him nuts, and Loghain has a completely irrational paranoid fear of Orlais (that's not to say that one shouldn't worry about Orlais, but Loghain's concern goes beyond what's rational to the point that he does absolutely atrocious things because of it.)

That said, I wanted to gut Loghain since I read The Stolen Throne (I still maintain he's the ultimate villain of that book), so I'm not entirely objective.

The real difference being that Anders is a one-note character under the influence of a supernatural force, and Loghain is a product of complex motivations- not just hatred of Orlais, also pride and an unwillingness to accept that a Blight is coming (because it would mean Flemeth's prophecy was true)- and a character whom you can substantially influence.  He is far more successful as both follower and antagonist.

Modifié par Addai67, 02 janvier 2013 - 05:59 .

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
You don't know this.  The rule of law in Ferelden is still tenuous, it's basically a feudal state,

Yes, I (we) do know this. Because we can extrapolate from history exactly what happens in these sorts of situations, and how legitimacy is metted out.

and if Howe can tip the scales of the Landsmeet then what Cailan wants is irrelevant.

Which requires that the whole of the bannorn sanction military conquest as a valid way of extending your power within Ferelden. This is beyond stupid.

Eamon wouldn't go along with it, and Redcliffe had its entire might. If Loghain wasn't part of it, based on his reputation, there is no reason for Howe to believe Loghain himself would side with him. This puts two of the most powerful nobles in the land - putting aside the King himself - against Howe. The plan is full of stupid.

Howe's plans obviously went beyond just Highever, hence he was in Denerim and surrounded by mages by the time Cailan was even dead.  I am guessing he planned to mind control Anora and obviously he already had allies in the Bannorn lined up.

That's fan-fiction. We don't know that Howe had any allies. What we know is that Loghain had allies when he declared himself Regent. 

It all falls too neatly into place, I grant you, but since the lead writer says that Loghain wasn't involved, that's the way it is.

I suppose DG wants to say that everything is Howe's fault, who's the actual irredeemable villain. But even if we go with that angle, Loghain is nevertheless an idiot for how he handles things post-Ostagar.

[In Exile]

Monica21 wrote...
Okay then. If you don't realize that Ferelden would become part of the Orlesian empire, then I don't know what to say. If you do realize it and still think it wouldn't be a bad thing, then, I just don't know what to say. If Ferelden wants to maintain independence, that marriage can't happen.

If Ferelden wants to maintain independence, and truly thinks this marriage would compromise it, Ferelden could depose Cailan the second he announces this marriage, even if that would mean another war with Orlais then and there (which, if Orlais truly has ambitions over Ferelden, would be inevitable anyway). And Loghain would then have the support he was looking for. Even men like Bryce and Emon seem like they would stand with him.

Modifié par In Exile, 02 janvier 2013 - 06:33 .

[upsettingshorts]

Technically, well at least historically speaking, Ferelden wouldn't become a part of Orlais after such a marriage. It would depend on their inheritance.

To borrow Crusader Kings 2 inheritance mechanics:

If I marry a Queen or Empress, we are allies of our own independent sovereign realms for the entirety of our lives. If we both have say... primogeniture inheritance, then our eldest kid will - on our deaths or abdication - inherit both realms as we each kick the bucket. But if we have say.... gavelkind, it's totally possible for one kid to get one realm, and the other kid to get the other. Or maybe each realm has its own inheritance laws, and seeing as the Landsmeet seems to have great sway in this matter, it's possible Ferelden's own inheritance law is closer to elective, in which case Cailan could marry Celene, and the Landsmeet would simply elect an unrelated monarch to succeed Cailan when the time comes.  In such a system, there'd be nothing stopping them from nominating Eamon, or Fergus, any noble really.  It would only matter who got the most votes in the Landmeet.

But marriage itself does not, historically, merge kingdoms. Succession does, typically through inheritance.

However.

If it is established in universe as a reasonable fear from a reasonably well informed character like Loghain, then we can logically assume that in the game this isn't the case, and Cailan may very well have offered up the whole kingdom as a wedding present. In which case, In Exile is probably correct that this would have triggered a rebellion to depose Cailan.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2013 - 06:48 .

[LPPrince]

Yeah, comparing Anders and Loghain, colossal difference in how I treated them.

Loghain I spared. I get why he did what he did. Some actions were definitely wrong, some were questionable, but they can be justified and I get him. Doesn't mean I agreed with him but I felt it was right to give him a chance, and even so, becoming a Warden is still sort of a death sentence in the end.

Anders? Killed. I know what he wanted, but my Hawke clearly saw a better way.

Plus, lets compare Loghain's leaving the battlefield at Ostagar to Anders' destruction of the Chantry.

Loghain had a perfectly good reason to leave. There was no chance of survival if he and his army joined the fight, and had he not left with his troops, every single person there would've been killed by the darkspawn, the only survivors being The Warden and Alistair.

Anders should not have destroyed the Chantry. There could've been a successful compromise between the Templars and Mages with Elthina around. Then again, what Anders wanted was not something Elthina and a compromise could give him, so he purposefully killed everyone in the Chantry to cause a massive civil war where more people were inevitably going to die "for a good cause". That my Hawke couldn't justify.

My Warden saw Loghain as a man he could understand, and although he tried his best to accomplish what needed to be done, he went about it in a VERY questionable way and yet was still redeemable, as long as he was willing.

My Hawke thought Anders was a terrorist who deserved death and nothing more.

Plus, as far as writing goes, Loghain was excellently written and DA2 Anders was terribad, so Loghain wins over there.



In the end, I think yes. I'd like an enemy similar to Loghain in that his or her actions while being dark and questionable can be understood with the right context, and if given the choice to spare or expunge him/her, leaves players conflicted on their actions.

More Loghains, less Anders'. Of course, I may be biased as I eliminated the latter, but I assume you get my point.

Modifié par LPPrince, 02 janvier 2013 - 06:48 .

[TEWR]

We don't know that Howe had any allies

Awakening shows that he indeed did have allies supporting his ideas, mostly lesser lords from his own Arling.

[upsettingshorts]

So his own vassals? That should be a given, otherwise he'd have a hard time coming up with the troops he was allegedly sending to Ostagar, but instead used to usurp Highever.

[TEWR]

Not arguing that it's a given. Usually if not always there are going to be vassals that support something that might further their own ambitions. Just that In Exile said that whether or not he had allies wasn't known, when we do in fact know.

But Howe is described in his codex entry as being almost universally reviled by people in Ferelden, so his vassals were likely the only support he was going to get barring circumstance necessitating an alliance of convenience from more powerful lords -- like Loghain who actually needs Howe after Ostagar and happens to detest Howe per DG.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 janvier 2013 - 06:56 .

[upsettingshorts]

I mean... all I suppose I'm saying is that vassals can and ought to count differently than allies in the sense In Exile was using. Still, vassals can break their oaths, and I believe that's precisely what Howe did when he usurped Highever.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2013 - 06:59 .

[Monica21]

In Exile wrote...
If Ferelden wants to maintain independence, and truly thinks this marriage would compromise it, Ferelden could depose Cailan the second he announces this marriage, even if that would mean another war with Orlais then and there (which, if Orlais truly has ambitions over Ferelden, would be inevitable anyway). And Loghain would then have the support he was looking for. Even men like Bryce and Emon seem like they would stand with him.

What Upsettingshorts said about the marriage is correct but I was too lazy to say it. The real problem is if Cailan and Celene ever had a child. ("If" because who knows why Anora's not been pregnant yet.)

First, if Cailan and Celene married after the Blight, who's going to be around to rebel? Ferelden is far too weak to put up any kind of opposition. Any hint that Cailan's throne might be in danger would end in Chevalier boots on Ferelden land and Cailan as a puppet king under Celene's rule.

Second, if you pretend that there never was a Blight, Eamon's the wild card in this supposed rebellion. Eamon, he who made the suggestion to Cailan that he set Anora aside and he with the Orlesian wife, might not be so opposed to Orlesian rule. And I admit that there are some good arguments to be made that Ferelden would do better as a willing participant in the Orlesian empire rather than as a occupied nation. I'm the wrong person to ask what those arguments actually are because I don't remember them and I'm a bit of a Ferelden nationalist, but I could see that they were good arguments, even if I disagreed.

Regarding Orlais having ambitions over Ferelden, I do think Celene wants it, but she's not willing to pay the price her uncle paid. A codex entry mentions that Florian (the Emperor when Ferelden rebelled) brought the empire to the brink of collapse, and that she assassinated and/or schemed against cousins with stronger claims to the throne. So, it's my opinion that she does want Ferelden and she can get it far easier through marriage than through a war.

[Monica21]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I mean... all I suppose I'm saying is that vassals can and ought to count differently than allies in the sense In Exile was using. Still, vassals can break their oaths, and I believe that's precisely what Howe did when he usurped Highever.  

I'm not sure that they should count differently, really. All you need are people who won't talk in exchange for a rise in rank. And even then all you need are a few people you know to be loyal to kill the rest of the invaders to make it look like a good portion of Howe's troops died trying to defend Highever and the Couslands. At least, that's what I would do.

[TEWR]

Monica21 wrote...

What Upsettingshorts said about the marriage is correct but I was too lazy to say it. The real problem is if Cailan and Celene ever had a child. ("If" because who knows why Anora's not been pregnant yet.)

Given that you can find out Cailan had many mistresses -- yet no one's ever heard about him having a child, bastard or trueborn -- I'd imagine that Anora's fertility isn't the issue, but that Cailan's shooting blanks.

As for Eamon supporting an Orlesian marriage... I'm not so sure he would. He talks with admiration towards Loghain regarding what he did to free them from Orlesian rule.

That he married an Orlesian woman isn't really much evidence he'd support a marriage to Celene, IMO. Bryland is half-Orlesian, but he's not sympathizing with them.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 janvier 2013 - 07:27 .

[upsettingshorts]

Yeah, but Cailan's infertility isn't really the end of the story in terms of inheritance.

All Selene has to do is get impregnated by someone and then just claim to everyone - up to and including Cailan himself - that it's his kid.  The loose end would be the father, but as long as there is doubt (eg. sleep with lots of guys, so that none can reasonably expect paternity) they wouldn't be much of a threat. 

Unless Celene is a character beyond reproach, or unconcerned with dynastic politics. Neither of which is the case, I don't think.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2013 - 07:28 .

[TEWR]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Yeah, but Cailan's infertility isn't really the end of the story in terms of inheritance.

All Selene has to do is get impregnated by someone and then just claim to everyone - up to and including Cailan himself - that it's his kid.

True, and IIRC Celene has blonde hair as well -- though that might've just been a fan's idea of what she looks like.

If so, it'd be really easy for her to pass it off as a Theirin child if it came out with blonde hair. Both the Theirins and Celene would have blonde hair, meaning that there couldn't be a "Blahblah Baratheon, Black of Hair" moment.

Unless Celene is a character beyond reproach, or unconcerned with dynastic politics. Neither of which is the case, I don't think.

I don't think they're the case either, myself.

[Mark of the Dragon]

Amen brother.

A game with a villain like Loghain AND the Arishok would be beast

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...
Yes, I (we) do know this. Because we can extrapolate from history exactly what happens in these sorts of situations, and how legitimacy is metted out.

LOL  No you can't.  If you pick any historical event, you won't be able to say what exactly happened let alone why.  Even in modern history.  Politics is psychology and that is complex.

You can hold firmly to your interpretation if you want, but that's all it is.

Which requires that the whole of the bannorn sanction military conquest as a valid way of extending your power within Ferelden.

... That's pretty much how the bannorn operate.

Eamon wouldn't go along with it, and Redcliffe had its entire might.

You don't know this.  Eamon is no paladin.  He is as thick in crown politics as anyone, and uses Alistair start to finish, not even making a peep if he is led off for execution.  He might even prefer a Highever that is substantially weakened.  It raises the power of his own arling.  He says himself that if Alistair were not there as his puppet, er, candidate, he would have to support Loghain and by extension Howe.  So are you so sure that he would not keep his mouth shut and go along, if Howe was able to sway enough people?

That's fan-fiction. We don't know that Howe had any allies. What we know is that Loghain had allies when he declared himself Regent.

So it's fanfiction if I say he had allies, but you go on in the next breath to say that we don't know.  Obviously you don't know he didn't, either.  He obviously believed that he would be able to sway the Crown and/or Landsmeet to confirm his claims.  Instead of just assuming it's bad writing and "full of stupid," maybe consider that your rigid interpretation is not the only way of looking at it all.

I suppose DG wants to say that everything is Howe's fault, who's the actual irredeemable villain. But even if we go with that angle, Loghain is nevertheless an idiot for how he handles things post-Ostagar.

No argument there.

Modifié par Addai67, 02 janvier 2013 - 08:05 .

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...

In Exile wrote...
Yes, I (we) do know this. Because we can extrapolate from history exactly what happens in these sorts of situations, and how legitimacy is metted out.

LOL  No you can't.  If you pick any historical event, you won't be able to say what exactly happened let alone why.  Even in modern history.  Politics is psychology and that is complex.

You can hold firmly to your interpretation if you want, but that's all it is.

In the case of succession crises, we have tons of examples in real life from which to draw inspiration when we hypothesize how such events might play out in Dragon Age.  These examples carry weight because the writers live in the same world with the same history as we do.

History isn't beyond understanding, arguing that it is seems... anti-intellectual.  Perfect knowledge is impossible, but at some point - especially with regards to well documented events - further precision is about fussing out the details.  Complexity is hard to convey, not necessarily to comprehend.  But by your logic, the Invasion of Normandy might not have even taken place, or it was undertaken because Space Aliens blackmailed Eisenhower into liberating their favorite restaurant in Calais.  

You can hold firmly to your interpretation if you want, but that's all it is.  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 janvier 2013 - 08:11 .

[Monica21]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
As for Eamon supporting an Orlesian marriage... I'm not so sure he would. He talks with admiration towards Loghain regarding what he did to free them from Orlesian rule.

That he married an Orlesian woman isn't really much evidence he'd support a marriage to Celene, IMO. Bryland is half-Orlesian, but he's not sympathizing with them.

Just because he admires Loghain doesn't mean he wouldn't think Redcliffe wouldn't be a fantastic corridor for an Orlesian trade route.

[In Exile]

Monica21 wrote...
First, if Cailan and Celene married after the Blight, who's going to be around to rebel? Ferelden is far too weak to put up any kind of opposition.

You mean the Blight Loghain refuse to believe exists? Yeah, it would be a good idea to deal with that. But Loghain never had it on his radar.

Any hint that Cailan's throne might be in danger would end in Chevalier boots on Ferelden land and Cailan as a puppet king under Celene's rule.

Or with Orlais being booted out of Ferelden, much like what happened before.

Second, if you pretend that there never was a Blight, Eamon's the wild card in this supposed rebellion. Eamon, he who made the suggestion to Cailan that he set Anora aside and he with the Orlesian wife, might not be so opposed to Orlesian rule.

Did you listen to Eamon wax poetically about what a hero Loghain was for kicking Orlais out of Ferelden? About what a terror it was for the lords of Ferelden to have to bow in their own lands to the Orlesian nobles? Eamon may have wanted a political alliance - his own marriage says as much - but it's very clear that he was a nationalist and wouldn't stand for any kind of subjugation of Ferelden to Orlais.

So, it's my opinion that she does want Ferelden and she can get it far easier through marriage than through a war.

I agree entirely. I just think Loghain is an idiot, even if we assume his motives are (a) pure; and ( entirely about protecting Ferelden's independence.

Kind how Riordan is an idiot for leaping to his death from that tower, even though he was clearly willing to die for the sake of ending the blight. Noble man, but damn stupid.