597 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Monica21 wrote...
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.

They need to have standing in the Landsmeet, and they need to have the military force to bring the rest of Ferelden in line. The Couslands were slain (save Fergus) but only because the entire might of Higheve was at Ostagar.

Let's assume that Ostagar is a victroy, under the military genius of Teyrn Loghain. Fergus returns with (much) of the original might of Highever, and is Teryn. Howe does - what? Try to poison Fergus in the interim? Declare Fergus a traitor? And even if he does that - why would men loyal to Fergus (who died under mysterious circumstances) and Bryce bow to Howe? If Howe gets executed, one of the banns who owed fealty to Bryce and who had Cousland blood could easily be raised to a Cousland themselves to continue the line and inherit Highever. Why bow down to Howe? Maybe his own vassals have something to gain, but Howe (without Loghain collaborating) just has no evidence of a political base.

This is why his move is stupid.

[Monica21]

In Exile wrote...
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.

Thanks for the forum-induced whiplash, but that doesn't have anything to do with the topic we are currently discussing.

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

And Orlais did once conquer and occupy Ferelden for a good 80 years. River Dane wasn't a one-shot to push out Orlesian invaders.

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.

Eamon can wax poetic about whatever he wants to wax poetic about, but he's interested in his own personal gain, just like almost every other noble in Ferelden. If there's gain from a peaceful alliance with Orlais, especially if the alternative is war with Orlais, then I'm fairly certain Eamon would go with a peaceful alliance. With a guarantee that it would increase his standing, of course.

[Monica21]

In Exile wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
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.

They need to have standing in the Landsmeet, and they need to have the military force to bring the rest of Ferelden in line. The Couslands were slain (save Fergus) but only because the entire might of Higheve was at Ostagar.

Let's assume that Ostagar is a victroy, under the military genius of Teyrn Loghain. Fergus returns with (much) of the original might of Highever, and is Teryn. Howe does - what? Try to poison Fergus in the interim? Declare Fergus a traitor? And even if he does that - why would men loyal to Fergus (who died under mysterious circumstances) and Bryce bow to Howe? If Howe gets executed, one of the banns who owed fealty to Bryce and who had Cousland blood could easily be raised to a Cousland themselves to continue the line and inherit Highever. Why bow down to Howe? Maybe his own vassals have something to gain, but Howe (without Loghain collaborating) just has no evidence of a political base.

This is why his move is stupid.

The bolded part is where I stopped reading. (Sorry?) He's too easy to kill on the battlefield or during one of those "scouting missions" he was sent on.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
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.

But we can say that if Eric Cantor decides tomorrow to stage a military coup, very likely that would be put down quite quickly. What Howe did wasn't politics - it was an attempted military conquest of his liege lord. There is no way any noble could possibly want to support this kind of action - it directly undermines the very idea of fealty, which is that the people at the top are safe precisely due to the obligations owed to them by the people at the bottom. There is a need, at least, to give lip service to the integrity of the system.

It's just like Orzammar. Bhelen clearly was a murderous snake. But he didn't just waltz in with a bunch of troops and decapidated his father with the expectation that the Assembly would declare him King.

That's pretty much how the bannorn operate.

Eamon is quite adamant that the whole notion behind the landsmeet is that they don't operate like warlords. But that's exactly what Howe is doing.

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?

When Eamon says he has to work with Howe, it's because the blight is on their door. But if the blight isn't a real threat, like Howe believes, then Eamon has no reason to feel that the lives of his men are better spent elsewhere.

Even if Eamon is a snake, he's not an idiot. Howe's dangerous. Even if Eamon wins by having Highever decapitated, then Howe's already played his part - he's killed Bryce and increased Eamon's power. Eamon has no gain in keeping Howe alive - executing him as a traitor serves his ends both by removing a clearly power-hungry loon who likely wants to be King from the picture and protecting the existing system which benefits Eamon so much as being an arl at the top of the food chain.

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. 

[To edit this to make my tone sound less combatative: my only point is that we have no evidence either way, and so stating something as a must here is misleading; at best you can say that it would be irrational for Howe do to this without allies, but my argument is that even with these allies, the plot doesn't make sense, so he couldn't have had them, cf. my comments below]

He obviously believed that he would be able to sway the Crown and/or Landsmeet to confirm his claims.

If he had enough military might to do this, there would be no civil war. This clearly does not happen when Loghain comes back with a much better story about how Cailan dies. But somehow Howe sacking Highever is going to play better with the landsmeet?

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 did look at it from other vantage points. See the above point: if Howe had the military might to force the landsmeet to accept his claims, the entire civil war makes no sense. Howe should be in an even better position with the loss at Ostagar, because on your argument his plan should have worked with Cailan returning victorious and the (majority) of the might of Highever intact. But that whole army was spent, and Loghain returned as his ally. And still Loghain + Howe were not enough to win a decisive victory against the rebels, without Eamon joining the fray.

Modifié par In Exile, 02 janvier 2013 - 08:37 .

[In Exile]

Monica21 wrote...
Thanks for the forum-induced whiplash, but that doesn't have anything to do with the topic we are currently discussing.

We're talking about hypotheticals. If we're trying to leave from the perspective that Loghain was justified in how he approached the matter, we have to take the facts as Loghain believed them.

And Orlais did once conquer and occupy Ferelden for a good 80 years. River Dane wasn't a one-shot to push out Orlesian invaders.

But if we take that view, why does this marriage matter at all? Orlais could just take Ferelden like it did last time: with sheer military might. The fact that it doesn't means that there are other considerations at play, whether it's the cost of the war or the fact that they might not have the men.

Eamon can wax poetic about whatever he wants to wax poetic about, but he's interested in his own personal gain, just like almost every other noble in Ferelden. If there's gain from a peaceful alliance with Orlais, especially if the alternative is war with Orlais, then I'm fairly certain Eamon would go with a peaceful alliance. With a guarantee that it would increase his standing, of course.

But if there's something to gain, then the Landsmeet won't oppose it. And then even if the cost is Ferelden's independence, no one will care if they have to pay it. So then, Loghain would be right: Ferelden would lose its independence. And then no one would care because of how much better off they'd all be.

The bolded part is where I stopped reading. (Sorry?) He's too easy to
kill on the battlefield or during one of those "scouting missions" he
was sent on.

You should have read on, since the whole post is about how even if Howe does that, his plan is still stupid and can't work.

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
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.

Key word hypothesize.

History isn't beyond understanding, arguing that it is seems... anti-intellectual.

I wasn't doing so.  I said you can't know exactly what happened, let alone why.  I didn't say you don't know anything.  But on any given event you can usually find numerous points of contradictory point of view, and this for events in the past- we are discussing Howe's plans for things that hadn't even happened yet and InExile apparently thinks there is certitude in it all.

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

Yes.  Hence why I am simply offering a different way to look at the matter.  I guess you assumed otherwise.

Modifié par Addai67, 02 janvier 2013 - 08:38 .

[TEWR]

Eamon is quite adamant that the whole notion behind the landsmeet is that they don't operate like warlords. But that's exactly what Howe is doing.

As a note, the Landsmeet historically did exist in Ferelden back when they were just feuding warlords.

Howe's just returning to that mindset, embracing the idea of fighting for more power like their ancestors did before Calenhad.

Which, yes, is a stupid thing to do since he's doing it all on his own per DG. And yet, it somehow worked. Probably only because of the Blight and people were thinking "We'll deal with him later, because we know him for the snake he is".

But I've often found Howe to be a ****** politically -- which is why I lean more towards Loghain only allying with him primarily from a military perspective, and that Howe snaked his way into Loghain's mind and made him think Anora would be too grief-stricken/conflicted over Cailan's death to truly provide help to him, and that's why Loghain turned to him.

Bioware knows jack **** about politics and warfare.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 02 janvier 2013 - 09:04 .

[Monica21]

In Exile wrote...
We're talking about hypotheticals. If we're trying to leave from the perspective that Loghain was justified in how he approached the matter, we have to take the facts as Loghain believed them.

Yes, hypotheticals about a post-Blight Cailan marriage, which means Cailan lives and the Blight is defeated and therefore Loghain's opinion about the Blight at Ostagar or through acts 1 and 2 is a moot point. Loghain has nothing to do with a Cailan/Celene marriage, except his suspicions and the fact that his daughter is involved.

But if we take that view, why does this marriage matter at all? Orlais could just take Ferelden like it did last time: with sheer military might. The fact that it doesn't means that there are other considerations at play, whether it's the cost of the war or the fact that they might not have the men.

Because it's a peaceful alliance. Because the war was unpopular in Orlais. Because too many Orlesians died occupying Ferelden. Yes, there are other factors. Why fight (another) war to gain the same country you just lost 30 years ago when you can just get married?

But if there's something to gain, then the Landsmeet won't oppose it. And then even if the cost is Ferelden's independence, no one will care if they have to pay it. So then, Loghain would be right: Ferelden would lose its independence. And then no one would care because of how much better off they'd all be.

Well, this is kind of my point. Eamon may be able to talk the nobles into it, with certain conditions about who can do what, but what about everybody else? Maybe Mexico would be better off as an arm of the USA, but I think there are quite a few Mexicans who would have a really big problem with that.

You should have read on, since the whole post is about how even if Howe does that, his plan is still stupid and can't work.

Well, you kind of shot yourself in the foot with any Howe theory if you're going to say Word of God is wrong. *shrug*

Modifié par Monica21, 02 janvier 2013 - 08:50 .

[Monica21]

In Exile wrote...
But that whole army was spent, and Loghain returned as his ally. And still Loghain + Howe were not enough to win a decisive victory against the rebels, without Eamon joining the fray.

Are you talking about the civil war? Because the game pretty clearly tells you that Loghain is winning.

[Bfler]

I don't necessarily need a person like Loghain
He is the same archetype of char we already have in other games like e.g. Ammon Jerro in NWN2. The man of middle age, who fights the same main enemy like the hero, but is more or less a ruthless person at the beginning, who also kills the good guys (Loghain -> Ostagar, Jerro -> destroys West Harbor)
Then the hero confronts him and after a final battle against the guy, he (eventually) becomes a party member in exchange for another char(Alistair, Ammons's relative Shandra). Then while in your party he begins to regret his former deeds and becomes an important person at the end of the game (Loghain -> Warden and dark ritual or us, Jerro -> reads names of the Shadow Reavers)

Javik is also such a person, with exception, that he doesn't replace someone else and that as DLC char he doesn't have an important part at the end.

Modifié par Bfler, 03 janvier 2013 - 06:39 .

[ashesandwine]

Guys! I had to kill Loghain to protect Ferelden! I know my action was questionable, but I had good intention *winks*

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Strawman. A poor one at that. And my patience is being tested a bit. If you're going to reply to my posts, kindly do so by addressing what I say and not what you'd like to believe I'm saying.

If you are going to ask that of me then I would expect the same courtesy of you, or did you forget this?

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

You wanted him to fight an entire horde that decimated the forces at Ostagar -- and would've completely destroyed the entire army there had he charged -- on open plains with only his Teyrnir's forces and one Bann's forces to help him?

I'm sorry, but that is so militarily unsound it's not even funny.

Please do highlight were I said anything like that, out of the two of us I am the only one to respond to what was actually said rather than foul perversion of what you would like to believe has been said so dont go crying foul when the argument doesnt go your way. 

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

...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.

What you mean twice? By the way you still havent given me your source for this assertion

ShadowDragoonFTW wrote...

He was selling the elven slaves to Tevinter (maybe even human slaves, too, we just never saw them) as a bid for their favor. As someone said earlier, he was trying to get the Tevinter Imperium on his side, hoping they could help with the war effort. Honestly, a league of powerful mages will help a lot more against the darkspawn than a handfull of warriors that would die all too easily.

There is a difference between asking for confirmation and calling somebody a liar and I do believe that I did give you a chance to provide a source for your claim, that offer is still on the table but it is my guess that you probably flee again stating something along the lines of "lulz you wouldnt listen even if I told you" because in all honesty you probably dont have a source and are likely making things up.

The other time would be asking TEWR to provide a source to back his claim that "Orlais has a history of using Blights to occupy foriegn lands and that the Wardens have a history of helping them in their conquests" which unlike you he actually had the decency to do.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Here. During the Second blight -- which occurred not long after the Divine Age was formed -- the Anderfels were abandoned by the Imperium. The Orlesians and the Wardens swooped in and helped save them and for many decades the Anderfels was ruled by the Orlesians.

It wasn't until 20 years after Drakon's death that they declared their independence by force.

The History of Kirkwall, part 3 codex shows us that the Orlesians will use any excuse to conquer new territories. They used the Qunari regime installed there 2 centuries prior to the Dragon Age as grounds to conquer the city, under guise of "liberation".

Kirkwall had to rebel to kick them out and regain their independence.

The Grey Wardens converted to the Chantry's beliefs and helped spread the faith. When one reviews history, one finds out that Drakon was the one that built the Grand Cathedral and proclaimed that he would see the Chantry's faith spread to the corners of the Orlesian empire. And he was noted as an expansionistic person -- something that Celene was also described as talking about, though Bioware's been wishy-washy on portraying her as expansionistic or peace-loving.

Drakon was also noted as wanting to expand his borders into the Free Marches, but the pressure from the Dales was interfering with that goal.

From the Towers Age description:

3:25 Towers: The armies of Orlais and the Tevinter Imperium meet in Hunter Fell and join the Grey Wardens in the last battle of the Third Blight. Toth is destroyed, and the darkspawn are slaughtered in one of the bloodiest battles in history. The darkspawn carcasses are piled into mounds as high as 100 feet and then burned. The people of the Free Marches will not soon forget the image of the burning darkspawn. Their goodwill is quickly crushed by the victorious armies as they decide to occupy the territories liberated from the darkspawn. Orlais takes Nevarra, while Tevinter takes Hunter Fell. These holdings don't last long, with Hunter Fell breaking away from Tevinter in 3:49 Towers and Nevarra achieving independence in 3:65 Towers.

Which gives evidence of Orlais taking land after using a disaster (qun invasion, blight) as a reason to invade but it is still foggy on the Warden's actively helping Orlais in their conquest, it explains that Orlais invaded the Anderfels (which was abandonned by Tevinter) after the Wardens drove the darkspawn out (which is what the Wardens do) but it is hardly evidence of the Wardens actively helping Orlais conquer foreign lands and even if you do want to use it as evidence of this it is only one example and hardly counts as a "history of assisting Orlais conquer foriegn land".

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

Monica21 wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Oh this is just rediculous, now we are using your own character's testimony (which you made up with metagame knowledge and explained as "a vibe from the soldiers") as evidence that Ostagar was unwinnable?

Well I got some bad news for you son, guess who else was at Ostagar? Thats right, B. A. Brosca baby (the B. A. stands for BAD ASS) and he saw the battle was totally winnable provided Loghain diddnt betray the king because the Maker appeared to him in a vision when he drank the blood and told him so.

Of course it stands for Bad Ass.

Anyway, did Bad Ass talk to anyone? Listen in on a single conversation other than Cailan telling Duncan how glorious the battle would be? Because Duncan is not as confident as Cailan. He wants to wait for reinforcements. He tells you that. You don't even have to overhear it. One group of soldiers talks about how the scouts are bring back bigger numbers every time. Another (obviously tainted) soldier tells you that you're all going to be slaughtered. There are a lot of clues at Ostagar that the battle will not go well for the Fereldens and none of them have to do with Loghain's retreat.

Can you not read? I already told you it was the Maker who told him this, are you doubting the word of the Maker?

[gneisenau556]

Except Loghain isn't really an enemy, more like the stubborn ally who doesn't like you. Maybe something more like Melissan/Irenicus from BG2.

[Monica21]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Oh this is just rediculous, now we are using your own character's testimony (which you made up with metagame knowledge and explained as "a vibe from the soldiers") as evidence that Ostagar was unwinnable?

Well I got some bad news for you son, guess who else was at Ostagar? Thats right, B. A. Brosca baby (the B. A. stands for BAD ASS) and he saw the battle was totally winnable provided Loghain diddnt betray the king because the Maker appeared to him in a vision when he drank the blood and told him so.

Of course it stands for Bad Ass.

Anyway, did Bad Ass talk to anyone? Listen in on a single conversation other than Cailan telling Duncan how glorious the battle would be? Because Duncan is not as confident as Cailan. He wants to wait for reinforcements. He tells you that. You don't even have to overhear it. One group of soldiers talks about how the scouts are bring back bigger numbers every time. Another (obviously tainted) soldier tells you that you're all going to be slaughtered. There are a lot of clues at Ostagar that the battle will not go well for the Fereldens and none of them have to do with Loghain's retreat.

Can you not read? I already told you it was the Maker who told him this, are you doubting the word of the Maker?

The Maker has left his children, which is why I know you're wrong.

[Dorrieb]

For those of you who defend Loghain, can you state again what it is you are arguing? Because it's all a bit muddled now.

a) Are you saying that Loghain isn't a simple villain, but instead a character with complex motivations and selfless intentions? Because I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

 Are you saying that Loghain is actually a goodie? Sorry, but anyone who sells people into slavery has crossed the moral event horizon. No, it doesn't matter what his reasons were or whose idea it was. Nothing can justify that. It is easily in the Top Three of evil deeds that you can do to let everyone know that you are officially evil, regardless of your intentions.

c) Are you arguing the case in favour of sparing Loghain? That is up to each of us and how we feel about it, but I'll say this: My character would have to be completely off her head to let Loghain live.

First, he has proven that he believes his own judgment to be better than anyone else's, and that he's willing to go to any lengths to impose it. He doesn't play well with others. At best you can expect him to disobey you and follow his own judgment. At worst he wouldn't hesitate to kill you if he thought it was best for Ferelden. That isn't someone you can trust.

Secondly, it's a pretty poor trick to play on your allies. They have risked a lot to side with you against him, and by leaving him alive and in a position of power you leave them at the mercy of his possible retribution.

Thirdly, I don't buy his conversion. So I beat him up and suddenly he's all 'I'm convinced! This proves that you are fit to lead Ferelden?' Sorry, all it proves is that I can beat you up, and I have no interest in leading Ferelden anyway.

Finally, he sold my people into slavery. I came home and my dad -- my dad! -- was in a cage, being sold to mages as nibbles! The three of them were already doing it when Eamon and I met them in Denerim, Howe with his sneer, Cauthrien with her smug little smirk. Was she thinking about all the little screaming elf children being dragged away as she smirked at me? And then she had the nerve to tell me about 'being born into freedom'?

For that alone, if nothing else, there is no way I could forgive them, not Howe, not Cauthrien, and certainly not their Master.

[The Hierophant]

^Oh please, the bulk of the arguments for Loghain's decisions point out that they're not as black and white as some like to paint it as(excluding the slavery), and that he's not someone who's evil for evil's sake.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 03 janvier 2013 - 09:59 .

[The Night Haunter]

Dorrieb wrote...

For those of you who defend Loghain, can you state again what it is you are arguing? Because it's all a bit muddled now.

a) Are you saying that Loghain isn't a simple villain, but instead a character with complex motivations and selfless intentions? Because I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

 Are you saying that Loghain is actually a goodie? Sorry, but anyone who sells people into slavery has crossed the moral event horizon. No, it doesn't matter what his reasons were or whose idea it was. Nothing can justify that. It is easily in the Top Three of evil deeds that you can do to let everyone know that you are officially evil, regardless of your intentions.

c) Are you arguing the case in favour of sparing Loghain? That is up to each of us and how we feel about it, but I'll say this: My character would have to be completely off her head to let Loghain live.

First, he has proven that he believes his own judgment to be better than anyone else's, and that he's willing to go to any lengths to impose it. He doesn't play well with others. At best you can expect him to disobey you and follow his own judgment. At worst he wouldn't hesitate to kill you if he thought it was best for Ferelden. That isn't someone you can trust.

Secondly, it's a pretty poor trick to play on your allies. They have risked a lot to side with you against him, and by leaving him alive and in a position of power you leave them at the mercy of his possible retribution.

Thirdly, I don't buy his conversion. So I beat him up and suddenly he's all 'I'm convinced! This proves that you are fit to lead Ferelden?' Sorry, all it proves is that I can beat you up, and I have no interest in leading Ferelden anyway.

Finally, he sold my people into slavery. I came home and my dad -- my dad! -- was in a cage, being sold to mages as nibbles! The three of them were already doing it when Eamon and I met them in Denerim, Howe with his sneer, Cauthrien with her smug little smirk. Was she thinking about all the little screaming elf children being dragged away as she smirked at me? And then she had the nerve to tell me about 'being born into freedom'?

For that alone, if nothing else, there is no way I could forgive them, not Howe, not Cauthrien, and certainly not their Master.

Point 2 - You're allies are allied against the Darkspawn, not Loghain. You are not tricking anyone, you are insuring the best chance you've got of ending the blight, which affects the whole world not just one medium size nation.

Point 3 - He has no more support, the chantry sided against him by acknowledging your victory in the landsmeet. If you let him live you are keeping an eye on him, you aren't sending him to command armies, plus he is a Grey Warden who (appart from Warden-Commander apparently) aren't really a part of any nation in a formal sense.

Slavery - He was doing what was necessary to win. If it necessary to kill a thousand innocents to save a million that seems a fair trade to me.

Now this is all my point of view and since you are talking about your characters point of view I respect that and I have no problem with people who want to kill Loghain, but there is definately a case to be made for why some people might want to save him. Plus if you read The Stolen Throne his character is much better defined (He gave up the love of his life to insure a strong Ferelden, he is relatively selfless and does what is for the greater good)

[Dorrieb]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

Slavery - He was doing what was necessary to win. If it necessary to kill a thousand innocents to save a million that seems a fair trade to me.

It does?

Now this is all my point of view and since you are talking about your characters point of view I respect that and I have no problem with people who want to kill Loghain, but there is definately a case to be made for why some people might want to save him.

I agree with that.

[TEWR]

Dorrieb wrote...

For those of you who defend Loghain, can you state again what it is you are arguing? Because it's all a bit muddled now.

a) Are you saying that Loghain isn't a simple villain, but instead a character with complex motivations and selfless intentions? Because I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

Yes.

Are you saying that Loghain is actually a goodie? Sorry, but anyone who sells people into slavery has crossed the moral event horizon. No, it doesn't matter what his reasons were or whose idea it was. Nothing can justify that. It is easily in the Top Three of evil deeds that you can do to let everyone know that you are officially evil, regardless of your intentions.

Flawed hero. Not a goodie in the sense of being completely white, but just a man who has done things -- ill or not varying on the person -- for the right reasons, mostly stemming from a lack of knowledge he should've been told by the Wardens to begin with and being a horrible politician. He's a Well-Intentioned Extremist.

But there are legitimate reasons for why he went through with the slavery thing. It wasn't simply "Well, the Elves are useless". And no, it doesn't make him officially evil. It's an evil thing to do, but that doesn't make one an evil person -- particularly if they feel guilt over doing it, something Loghain does feel about that and other things.

Such that he'll even tell you that after the battle, he'll tell you how he copes with the pressure of being a general when some of the people he knew took to drink or prayer.

Because if doing something evil made you an evil person, a blood mage that controls someone's mind to stop criminals from killing someone must be evil. They did what's arguably an evil thing -- took control of a person's mind -- but that doesn't make them evil.

Besides, this comes down to "sacrifice one, save a thousand" since it's Loghain's only other option. It wasn't "Sell the Elves, no one cares about them".

It was "Sell some of the Elves, so we can save everyone else in Ferelden -- other Elves included". Highever has its own Alienage, as does Gwaren. And the slavery thing was only happening in Denerim. 

Were I in Loghain's position, I might consider it as well if I didn't have the Circle on my side and the treasury was bankrupt. But I'd retch many times because I'd detest it -- and he detests it as well.

c) Are you arguing the case in favour of sparing Loghain? That is up to each of us and how we feel about it, but I'll say this: My character would have to be completely off her head to let Loghain live.

So wanting to have 4 Wardens instead of 3 is insane? Sure, Alistair will refuse to waltz around with you if you take Loghain, but if push came to shove and the Warden, Loghain, and Riordan had all died it would fall to Alistair to take it down.

Riordan makes it a point that they accept anyone into their ranks. Murderers, brigands, nobility, etc. When a Senior Warden -- who was imprisoned by this man's subordinate -- is saying "Make use of him", I don't think it should be discounted out of hand.

In addition, he's a morale booster to the army. His name has become synonymous with the ideals of Fereldan hard work and independence. His name translates to "Son of the Land", apt for his patriotism and love of Ferelden.

Sparing him leads to many people being glad he's still alive, which makes the soldiers in turn able to fight better. Sure, not everyone's happy about that, but morale is a powerful -- and important -- thing when fighting a war.

First, he has proven that he believes his own judgment to be better than anyone else's, and that he's willing to go to any lengths to impose it. He doesn't play well with others. At best you can expect him to disobey you and follow his own judgment. At worst he wouldn't hesitate to kill you if he thought it was best for Ferelden. That isn't someone you can trust.

Except once you defeat him, he sees something of Maric in you. Maric, the man he would've followed into the Fade itself.

For him to disobey and betray you would in turn mean he was betraying Maric.

Secondly, it's a pretty poor trick to play on your allies. They have risked a lot to side with you against him, and by leaving him alive and in a position of power you leave them at the mercy of his possible retribution.

Except Zevran had no issue with Loghain, Oghren doesn't care, Sten approves of him being spared, Morrigan likes him more then Alistair, Dog likes everyone, and Shale is made of stone and could crush him easily if he tried anything.

The only person that have a problem with his presence is Wynne. And even she'll admit later on that she was wrong about Loghain.

Leliana doesn't really care one way or the other.

Thirdly, I don't buy his conversion. So I beat him up and suddenly he's all 'I'm convinced! This proves that you are fit to lead Ferelden?' Sorry, all it proves is that I can beat you up, and I have no interest in leading Ferelden anyway.

He sees something of Maric in you, which cinches that you aren't an Orlesian agent. He sees something of the man that fought to preserve the nation he loves so much.

He can rest easy knowing that someone like Maric is at the helm of the war against the Darkspawn.

Finally, he sold my people into slavery. I came home and my dad -- my dad! -- was in a cage, being sold to mages as nibbles! The three of them were already doing it when Eamon and I met them in Denerim, Howe with his sneer, Cauthrien with her smug little smirk.

Cauthrien doesn't smirk. You're being disingenuous.

Was she thinking about all the little screaming elf children being dragged away as she smirked at me? And then she had the nerve to tell me about 'being born into freedom'?

Well, you were born into freedom.

And would he have done the slavery thing if the Circle was on his side and he could've used the Lucrosians to raise the nation's coffers? No, he wouldn't. But because of Wynne's fat yap, he was left with only one alternative: slavery. During times of war -- civil war especially -- the realm's coffers will deplete faster and faster. More so considering Ferelden has very little of interest or use to raise coin.

Would he have done it if Howe, the person who shows absolutely no compassion for Elves, wasn't there manipulating Loghain? Doubtful, but not out of the question.

And as for sparing him? That doesn't denote forgiveness. You can still call him a monster and hate him after he's on your side.

Frankly, I would find living with the weight of his actions to be a far more horrific punishment then killing him, if I were to play a bastard Warden -- I don't though.

30 years of that weight on his shoulders, plaguing his soul? That's a heavy toll. And he does feel guilt over what he's done, such that he'll tell you afterwards how he copes with it -- or would, if we could ask after the Blight was ended how he does cope with it.

ShadowDragonFTW wrote...

As someone said earlier, he was trying to get the Tevinter Imperium on his side, hoping they could help with the war effort

I don't think anyone said that actually, as far as I know. I know I said Loghain's original intent was to get the Circle on his side, but Wynne blabbing like a moron on things she doesn't know **** about ruined that prospect, so Loghain was forced to use slavery to bring up the nation's coffers -- something he could've done with the Lucrosians and Formari instead, had the Circle been allied with him.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 janvier 2013 - 01:15 .

[Monica21]

Dorrieb wrote...

a) Are you saying that Loghain isn't a simple villain, but instead a character with complex motivations and selfless intentions? Because I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

Yes, and quite a few people disagree with that.

 Are you saying that Loghain is actually a goodie? Sorry, but anyone who sells people into slavery has crossed the moral event horizon. No, it doesn't matter what his reasons were or whose idea it was. Nothing can justify that. It is easily in the Top Three of evil deeds that you can do to let everyone know that you are officially evil, regardless of your intentions.

Good, like White Hat good? No. Well intentioned? Yes. And when you say "officially evil" you're kind of voiding your statement above that he has complex motivations.

c) Are you arguing the case in favour of sparing Loghain? That is up to each of us and how we feel about it, but I'll say this: My character would have to be completely off her head to let Loghain live.

Each character has a reason to spare him or not to, but I think it's foolish not to, if only because Riordan tells you that you should recruit him for "compelling reasons." There is an obvious reason to have another Warden even if you don't know what it is yet.

First, he has proven that he believes his own judgment to be better than anyone else's, and that he's willing to go to any lengths to impose it.

Because his own judgement has been right most of his life.

He doesn't play well with others. At best you can expect him to disobey you and follow his own judgment. At worst he wouldn't hesitate to kill you if he thought it was best for Ferelden. That isn't someone you can trust.

Except I can trust him. Why would I "expect" that someone willing to be beheaded on the floor of the Landsmeet because he was wrong about you is going to disobey me? He's willing to die for Ferelden. Because he was wrong and you were right. He is trustworthy, and he proves it if you recruit him.

Secondly, it's a pretty poor trick to play on your allies. They have risked a lot to side with you against him, and by leaving him alive and in a position of power you leave them at the mercy of his possible retribution.

Who are you talking about here?

Thirdly, I don't buy his conversion. So I beat him up and suddenly he's all 'I'm convinced! This proves that you are fit to lead Ferelden?' Sorry, all it proves is that I can beat you up, and I have no interest in leading Ferelden anyway.

It doesn't matter if you buy it. It's true. He doesn't beg for his life, he lets you kill him without a word except to tell Anora that it's okay every single time.

Finally, he sold my people into slavery. I came home and my dad -- my dad! -- was in a cage, being sold to mages as nibbles! The three of them were already doing it when Eamon and I met them in Denerim, Howe with his sneer, Cauthrien with her smug little smirk. Was she thinking about all the little screaming elf children being dragged away as she smirked at me? And then she had the nerve to tell me about 'being born into freedom'?

Eh, well, things happen. And really, I don't have a lot of sympathy for alienage elves. Sorry I'm not sorry. If you or dear old dad didn't like alienage life so much then maybe you should leave. Maybe the elves should demand a rightful position in the rest of Ferelden society. But they don't. I'm not going all Ayn Rand here, but if you want a better life then you do what you can to make it better or you will get taken advantage of. The elves were in a position to be taken advantage of because they spent generations letting it happen.

For that alone, if nothing else, there is no way I could forgive them, not Howe, not Cauthrien, and certainly not their Master.

Your choice is your choice. Forgiveness has nothing to do with sparing someone's life though. You don't have to forgive Loghain's choices to let him live.

[TEWR]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

If you are going to ask that of me then I would expect the same courtesy of you, or did you forget this?

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

You wanted him to fight an entire horde that decimated the forces at Ostagar -- and would've completely destroyed the entire army there had he charged -- on open plains with only his Teyrnir's forces and one Bann's forces to help him?

I'm sorry, but that is so militarily unsound it's not even funny.

Please do highlight were I said anything like that, out of the two of us I am the only one to respond to what was actually said rather than foul perversion of what you would like to believe has been said so dont go crying foul when the argument doesnt go your way.

Here's what you originally said:

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

Chewin3 wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
Never mind the fact that most of his actions totally contradict these qualities (apart from the "hates Orlais" part)

Does he now? While yes certain actions of his are questionable, his motives were always the safety of Ferelden. Everything from the death of Cailan to the poisoning of Arl Eamon had a reason to them.

Could have fooled me, is Lothering not a part of Ferelden? Or just a part of it that isnt worth keeping safe?

Which I inferred to mean you wanted him to protect Lothering with what men he had, on open plains, against a horde that would've decimated the Darkspawn.

Fact: The Landsmeet convenes in Denerim. Loghain had to go north if he was to have the best chance of gathering the army together. So he couldn't defend Lothering immediately after Ostagar. He didn't have enough men.

Not to mention there aren't any fortresses he could've used to his advantage. Lothering consists of farmland, hillsides, and open plains. It would've been a massacre if he had tried to do that.

Now, if your statement was meant to mean after the Landsmeet he should've taken what men he had to defend Lothering, that was also not possible. The Bannorn was ready to launch a civil war at the worst possible time, and he can't risk fighting a war on two fronts.

And besides, when has there ever been a Blight were villages and some towns weren't destroyed?

Which gives evidence of Orlais taking land after using a disaster (qun invasion, blight) as a reason to invade but it is still foggy on the Warden's actively helping Orlais in their conquest, it explains that Orlais invaded the Anderfels (which was abandonned by Tevinter) after the Wardens drove the darkspawn out (which is what the Wardens do) but it is hardly evidence of the Wardens actively helping Orlais conquer foreign lands and even if you do want to use it as evidence of this it is only one example and hardly counts as a "history of assisting Orlais conquer foriegn land".

But the Wardens actively helped expand the Chantry's influence, which was the result of Drakon's own expansionistic desires. And the Chantry and Orlais both do what's mutually beneficial to them, as we see from Divine Beatrix III's use of the Templars to pressure Perrin Threnhold as a favor to her friend the Emperor of Orlais.

Further information: Drakon launched a series of Exalted Marches against neighboring city-states in order to unify what is now Orlais under one common banner, all in the name of religion. He said he would spread the faith in the Maker the Chantry embodied to every corner of his empire, such that he kept wanting to expand his empire. He wanted to take hold of the Free Marches, but the Dales got in the way of that. He married a lesser noble lady skilled at archery, granting her a bow so that they could "spread the Light of the Maker side-by-side".

He began construction of the Grand Cathedral during the beginning of his conquest.

Kordilius Drakon, king of the city-state of Orlais, was a man of uncommon ambition. In the year -15 Ancient, the young king began construction of a great temple dedicated to the Maker, and declared that by its completion he would not only have united the warring city-states of the south, he would have brought Andrastian belief to the world.

In -3 Ancient, the temple was completed. There, in its heart, Drakon knelt before the eternal flame of Andraste and was crowned ruler of the Empire of Orlais. His first act as Emperor: To declare the Chantry as the established Andrastian religion of the Empire.

It took three years and several hundred votes before Olessa of Montsimmard was elected to lead the new Chantry. Upon her coronation as Divine, she took the name Justinia, in honor of the disciple who recorded Andraste's songs. In that moment, the ancient era ended and the Divine Age began.

--From Ferelden: Folklore and History, by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar.

Now, IIRC I stated he crowned the first Divine. If so, I was wrong.

All of this shows how Orlais, from its inception to Celene, has had expansionistic desires.

Now, as for the Wardens sign a treaty proclaiming their neutrality during the Third Blight, that's something that I distinctly remember reading/hearing about but cannot put a source to it. So, it's a matter of taking my word for what it is unless I can find one.

All I can say is that Tevinter and Orlais refused to team up during the 3rd Blight, and it was only through the Wardens' mediation that the two nations begrudgingly did so. That much is known and is on the wiki's Blight page.

Wait.... I'm looking it up now and KoP once posted about it as well.

"1:01 Divine Age: The Chantry named its first Divine, Justinia I, giving the first age of the new calendar its name. This age saw the expansion of the Chantry’s influence throughout Thedas, aided by the eager conversion of the Grey Wardens. The order championed the Chantry’s growth, spreading Andraste’s teachings across Thedas."

From this thread

The actual link is this: http://www.gameinfor...PostPageIndex=2

Sadly, the link has expired, the article itself no longer existing. 

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 janvier 2013 - 01:11 .

[Dorrieb]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

But there are legitimate reasons for why he went through with the slavery thing.

There is simply no such thing as 'legitimate reasons' for slavery.

It's an evil thing to do, but that doesn't make one an evil person -- particularly if they feel guilt over doing it.

That is an odd philosophy to have. I would say that doing an evil thing does make you an evil person, regardless of how guilty it makes you feel. We're not talking about nicking a pie from a bakery here. He sold people.

Besides, this comes down to "sacrifice one, save a thousand" since it's Loghain's only other option.

'Dear The Ethereal Writer Redux,   As you know, we were desperate for funding for the war effort, so we've sold your parents to the pet food factory. We know that you understand, and sincerely regret the distress that this unfortunate necessity no doubt will cause you. Long live Ferelden! Love, Teyrn Loghain.'

Except once you defeat him, he sees something of Maric in you.

What, exactly? My right hook? The glint in my eye? My grim look of fierce determination? That is nonsense. It's nothing but a longing for approval from an authoritarian father figure.

Cauthrien doesn't smirk. You're being disingenuous.

Oh doesn't she just! Just wait until I figure out how to take a screenshot and I'll post it.

[Dorrieb]

Monica21 wrote...
 And when you say "officially evil" you're kind of voiding your statement above that he has complex motivations.

Sorry, are you saying that officially evil characters can't have complex motivations? Milton's Satan would like a word with you. So would Tom Ripley, Don Juan, Kurtz, Macbeth, Iago, Javert, Fa- gin, Shylock, Rupert of Hentzau, Tony Montana, Stringer Bell, and Magneto... and that's just the short list.

Except I can trust him. Why would I "expect" that someone willing to be beheaded on the floor of the Landsmeet because he was wrong about you is going to disobey me?

'Willing' is a bit of an exaggeration. It isn't as if he can do anything about it. I had to beat him up twice before he went 'oh, look, you kind of have Maric's nose! Well I'm totally convinced now, sorry about the misunderstanding.'

Secondly, it's a pretty poor trick to play on your allies. They have risked a lot to side with you against him, and by leaving him alive and in a position of power you leave them at the mercy of his possible retribution.

Who are you talking about here?

Eamon, Teagan, and the nobles who publicly sided with me against him.

It doesn't matter if you buy it. It's true. He doesn't beg for his life, he lets you kill him without a word except to tell Anora that it's okay every single time.

So he has courage. That makes him courageous, not trustworthy.

Finally, he sold my people into slavery.

Eh, well, things happen.

Seriously?

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