127 réponses à ce sujet

[Sialater]

Dennis Carpenter wrote...

so then betrayal is worse then murder?????????? Did you kill the soldiers in the tavern after leliana told you they surrendered. They werent sorry about attacking you they were sorry they didnt realize how strong you were. My point is if you give second chances then you might want to consider giving everyone that option.

Howe, Loghain and Branka get no second chances.

Some crimes are unforgivable.

[tallon1982]

Lets push this a bit further...Ask yourself this question if your best buddy stole your girl or guy would you forgive them? Would you trust them again?

[Gold Dragon]

Hmmm.... One thing is certain.... Loghain is one well-written character. Well Done, Bioware!

[ReubenLiew]

tallon1982 wrote...

Lets push this a bit further...Ask yourself this question if your best buddy stole your girl or guy would you forgive them? Would you trust them again?

Depends. Did I deserve it?

[tallon1982]

Would that really matter?

[ReubenLiew]

Unless you're pretty petty about stuff like that, yes.

[eschilde]

 

But just because he cannot kill his daughter does not make him redeemable for all the other actions he has done. I said he doesn't regret anything he did, and you know what, I'm right. He doesn't regret killing Cailan. He tells Wynne he knew the names and families of every soldier on that field, he knows "exactly how much he lost" at the battle, but never once says it was wrong, never once really shows regret. He essentially says, I know who they are, but it doesn't matter. When Shale mocks him about not killing his daughter he agrees with Shale... you know why? Because he doesn't regret letting his daughter live.... Like I said, he regrets nothing.

I wonder that he doesn't regret anything at all. Just because he never says he it, doesn't mean he doesn't feel regret. I will say, I have not read the books, so I am basing my assumptions completely on what I know of him in game. Loghain's greatest fault is pride--pride in his own abilities and judgment, pride in his station, pride in his daughter, pride in his past glory. When people with that much pride lose their honor, it tends to be a very bitter draft to swallow. He knows he was in the wrong and that his actions nearly doomed Fereldan. But admitting it out loud, to others, is a very hard thing to do.

Of course he doesn't regret letting his daughter live, and of course he freely admits it--his conscience there is clear, he never did anything wrong. But the other ones, the ones he did do something wrong with, well.. I will just say, if you do something seriously wrong in your life, trying to explain your thought process to justify your actions seems (and is) totally pointless. At that point you're beyond redemption, so why try to explain why you did the things you did, to others? 

At the end of the game, if Loghain's alive, his atonement is for himself, not to prove to anyone else that he's still a hero. Loghain doesn't care what anyone (except probably Anora) in the game thinks of him. His reputation is shot, he's been labeled a paranoid man who nearly drove Fereldan into the ground, but he can at least die for his country, and that's enough for him.

At least that's how I see it... I understand why Loghain is hated, but I think the person who feels the heaviest weight of his actions is him.

[ReubenLiew]

Loghain is basically Col. Jessup from A Few Good Men.

[Ruathrar]

At least that's how I see it... I understand why Loghain is hated, but I think the person who feels the heaviest weight of his actions is him.

I think the elves that he helped enslave would beg to differ.

[tallon1982]

ReubenLiew wrote...

Unless you're pretty petty about stuff like that, yes.

Only you would know if you deserved it. Typically people betray others because you possess what they do not.

[fantasypisces]

tallon1982 wrote...

Lets push this a bit further...Ask yourself this question if your best buddy stole your girl or guy would you forgive them? Would you trust them again?

It has happened to me, and no, I hope he eats **** for breakfast, every day, and his **** falls off.

I'm serious.

[Asylumer]

fantasypisces wrote...
But just because he cannot kill his daughter does not make him redeemable for all the other actions he has done. I said he doesn't regret anything he did, and you know what, I'm right. He doesn't regret killing Cailan. He tells Wynne he knew the names and families of every soldier on that field, he knows "exactly how much he lost" at the battle, but never once says it was wrong, never once really shows regret. He essentially says, I know who they are, but it doesn't matter. When Shale mocks him about not killing his daughter he agrees with Shale... you know why? Because he doesn't regret letting his daughter live.... Like I said, he regrets nothing.

...

Ok now this is funny. How can he recognize what he's lost without knowing regret. There's a lot to learn about Loghain and how he didn't want things to end up this way, but he felt it was the right course of action. Perhaps if you had experience with making hard decisions you'd see his side better. What's that Sten says about a pitiable memory or an enviable life?

Oh, and you think him worse for not letting his daughter live... now that one is simply hilarious. Would you rather that he killed her and assumed the throne instead of playing politics? Yes... what a bad man for not changing his mind. You've applied a double standard, a contradiction, here. In one instance he manages to be ruthless enough to do what he thinks is necessary, and in the next he can't bring himself to. In both cases he does have regrets, but no sane person could constantly let regret get the better of them. A person has to make a decision at some point, and Loghain is mature enough to live with his decisions -- for ill or good.

[fantasypisces]

Asylumer wrote...

fantasypisces wrote...
But just because he cannot kill his daughter does not make him redeemable for all the other actions he has done. I said he doesn't regret anything he did, and you know what, I'm right. He doesn't regret killing Cailan. He tells Wynne he knew the names and families of every soldier on that field, he knows "exactly how much he lost" at the battle, but never once says it was wrong, never once really shows regret. He essentially says, I know who they are, but it doesn't matter. When Shale mocks him about not killing his daughter he agrees with Shale... you know why? Because he doesn't regret letting his daughter live.... Like I said, he regrets nothing.

...

Ok now this is funny. How can he recognize what he's lost without knowing regret. There's a lot to learn about Loghain and how he didn't want things to end up this way, but he felt it was the right course of action. Perhaps if you had experience with making hard decisions you'd see his side better. What's that Sten says about a pitiable memory or an enviable life?

Oh, and you think him worse for not letting his daughter live... now that one is simply hilarious. Would you rather that he killed her and assumed the throne instead of playing politics? Yes... what a bad man for not changing his mind. You've applied a double standard, a contradiction, here. In one instance he manages to be ruthless enough to do what he thinks is necessary, and in the next he can't bring himself to. In both cases he does have regrets, but no sane person could constantly let regret get the better of them. A person has to make a decision at some point, and Loghain is mature enough to live with his decisions -- for ill or good.

You are putting words in my mouth. I never once said I think he is worse because he let his daughter live. So no double standard or contradiction. Like I said earlier, I never once brought up Anora, I have no problem with him letting her live. You are the one jumping to those conclusions based upon something I have never once said.

And you can certainly know what you lost and not regret it. Going with the above example of a friend stealing your girl (which has happened to me) he knew he (my friend) lost his best friend (me) because of it. But as he has told me, he does not regret it because he likes my (then) girlfriend that much.

I have many examples from countless battles in history where a General sacrificed a unit. That general knows exactly how many men he lost, but the men were willing to follow orders and due their "duty" to whatever they were fighting for. The general has no regrets abou his dicision, it was something that had to be done.

Stop making arguments towards me for things I have never once stated.

If anything my statement "... not killing his daughter does not make him redeemable for his other actions.." is exactly the opposite of what you are trying to throw at me. Not killing his daughter is a good action, as it shows he is not trying to overtake the throne completely. But just because he does that one action (a good action) does not mean he is redeemable for all the other actions he has done (i.e. sacrificing hundreds of men to kill his King - attempting assassination on a noble - selling elves into slavery).

Modifié par fantasypisces, 08 janvier 2010 - 04:43 .

[ReubenLiew]

tallon1982 wrote...

ReubenLiew wrote...

Unless you're pretty petty about stuff like that, yes.

Only you would know if you deserved it. Typically people betray others because you possess what they do not.

Hardly.
People betray others for lots of reasons, and quite frankly, if I were a horrible person to my mate and she cheats on me with my mate, I'd say I deserve it, although it'll probably take time to see it.
Then again if I were a horrible person I'd be too blind to see my mistakes.

[tallon1982]

You don't have to be a horrible person to betray someone. It's emotional.

[fantasypisces]

tallon1982 wrote...

You don't have to be a horrible person to betray someone. It's emotional.

Pretty much this.

[Asylumer]

fantasypisces wrote...

You are putting words in my mouth. I never once said I think he is worse because he let his daughter live. So no double standard or contradiction. Like I said earlier, I never once brought up Anora, I have no problem with him letting her live. You are the one jumping to those conclusions based upon something I have never once said.

Yet you tried to use that as evidence that Loghain didn't experience regret. You said it as if it were a bad thing.

And you can certainly know what you lost and not regret it. Going with the above example of a friend stealing your girl (which has happened to me) he knew he (my friend) lost his best friend (me) because of it. But as he has told me, he does not regret it because he likes my (then) girlfriend that much.

Yet he probably considered what he'd lose, if he valued your friendship in the first place. Just because somebody says they don't experience regret doesn't mean they won't later, have at some time, or have enough understanding of themselves to know the truth. There's no real way to know if somebody experienced regret, but if they say they've lost something it's rational to assume they considered the consequences of their actions at some point, and felt on some level that they were wrong. They just never showed regret publically.

I have many examples from countless battles in history where a General sacrificed a unit. That general knows exactly how many men he lost, but the men were willing to follow orders and due their "duty" to whatever they were fighting for. The general has no regrets abou his dicision, it was something that had to be done.

Do you also hate them for it, as you hate Loghain? The general might not show regret, but regret is a part of the decision making process. It's impossible to recognize loss without at least considering it, however briefly.

Stop making arguments towards me for things I have never once stated.

Then pay more attention to what you're saying and how it applies.

Earlier you wrote...

When Shale mocks him about not killing his daughter he agrees with
Shale... you know why? Because he doesn't regret letting his daughter
live.... Like I said, he regrets nothing.

You said it as if it were a bad thing. You took the fact he couldn't kill his daughter and turned it into a negative for your argument.

If anything my statement "... not killing his daughter does not make him redeemable for his other actions.." is exactly the opposite of what you are trying to throw at me. Not killing his daughter is a good action, as it shows he is not trying to overtake the throne completely. But just because he does that one action (a good action) does not mean he is redeemable for all the other actions he has done (i.e. sacrificing hundreds of men to kill his King - attempting assassination on a noble - selling elves into slavery).

Didn't you go into regret in the first place to distinguish between Loghain and the other NPCs who've done terrible things yet qualify for redemption? Whether somebody qualifies for redemption or not is completely in the eyes of the redeemer.

Earlier you wrote...

The difference with Loghain is that he was not hired to do what he did,
and he did not feel remorse over it. Listen to his dialogue with
companions after you recruit him, he doesn't regret it. He is stark
raving mad...

I brought up Anora because you accused Loghain of madness and inhumanity. I put no words in your mouth that you have not typed yourself. You've been changing your position this entire discussion. Is he so ruthless that nothing will stand in his way, or does he recognize the suffering his actions bring? If he isn't willing to kill Anora, obviously he's not completely mad, now is he? Where is the line you draw between him and the other characters you can recruit?

Is Loghain the general who makes a hard decision, or a complete lunatic you'd condemn to death. Make up your freakin mind already.

[ReubenLiew]

tallon1982 wrote...

You don't have to be a horrible person to betray someone. It's emotional.

Of course not.
However it's much easier to betray a horrible person, it's all I'm saying.

[tallon1982]

I don't think Loghain is mad but just psychopathic. He has no fear and believes he is doing what is best for his daughter. Does he want to kill her? Part of him does but his humanity stops him. All his decisions are emotion based as are the Wardens.



Anora's love for her father can be almost equated to Stockholme Syndrome (sorry if I butchered that) minus the falling in love with your captor. Nothing her father has done is seen wrong in her eyes. She only says it's wrong because it sounds right and keeps her in power.

[fantasypisces]

Asylumer wrote...

fantasypisces wrote...

You are putting words in my mouth. I never once said I think he is worse because he let his daughter live. So no double standard or contradiction. Like I said earlier, I never once brought up Anora, I have no problem with him letting her live. You are the one jumping to those conclusions based upon something I have never once said.

Yet you tried to use that as evidence that Loghain didn't experience regret. You said it as if it were a bad thing.

And you can certainly know what you lost and not regret it. Going with the above example of a friend stealing your girl (which has happened to me) he knew he (my friend) lost his best friend (me) because of it. But as he has told me, he does not regret it because he likes my (then) girlfriend that much.

Yet he probably considered what he'd lose, if he valued your friendship in the first place. Just because somebody says they don't experience regret doesn't mean they won't later, have at some time, or have enough understanding of themselves to know the truth. There's no real way to know if somebody experienced regret, but if they say they've lost something it's rational to assume they considered the consequences of their actions at some point, and felt on some level that they were wrong. They just never showed regret publically.

I have many examples from countless battles in history where a General sacrificed a unit. That general knows exactly how many men he lost, but the men were willing to follow orders and due their "duty" to whatever they were fighting for. The general has no regrets abou his dicision, it was something that had to be done.

Do you also hate them for it, as you hate Loghain? The general might not show regret, but regret is a part of the decision making process. It's impossible to recognize loss without at least considering it, however briefly.

Stop making arguments towards me for things I have never once stated.

Then pay more attention to what you're saying and how it applies.

Earlier you wrote...

When Shale mocks him about not killing his daughter he agrees with
Shale... you know why? Because he doesn't regret letting his daughter
live.... Like I said, he regrets nothing.

You said it as if it were a bad thing. You took the fact he couldn't kill his daughter and turned it into a negative for your argument.

If anything my statement "... not killing his daughter does not make him redeemable for his other actions.." is exactly the opposite of what you are trying to throw at me. Not killing his daughter is a good action, as it shows he is not trying to overtake the throne completely. But just because he does that one action (a good action) does not mean he is redeemable for all the other actions he has done (i.e. sacrificing hundreds of men to kill his King - attempting assassination on a noble - selling elves into slavery).

Didn't you go into regret in the first place to distinguish between Loghain and the other NPCs who've done terrible things yet qualify for redemption? Whether somebody qualifies for redemption or not is completely in the eyes of the redeemer.

Earlier you wrote...

The difference with Loghain is that he was not hired to do what he did,
and he did not feel remorse over it. Listen to his dialogue with
companions after you recruit him, he doesn't regret it. He is stark
raving mad...

I brought up Anora because you accused Loghain of madness and inhumanity. I put no words in your mouth that you have not typed yourself. You've been changing your position this entire discussion. Is he so ruthless that nothing will stand in his way, or does he recognize the suffering his actions bring? If he isn't willing to kill Anora, obviously he's not completely mad, now is he? Where is the line you draw between him and the other characters you can recruit?

Is Loghain the general who makes a hard decision, or a complete lunatic you'd condemn to death. Make up your freakin mind already.

Yes a person is of course capable of experiencing regret later. My opinion of Loghain is during the game he never did. Now (if he had lived) 20 years down the line, he might.

In regards to if I hate the generals, there are many deciding factors. I hate Loghain because his entire act of sacrificing those hundreds of soldiers was not a well thought plan. This is hard to answer, so I might have to leave it there, just to many deciding factors.

I have been paying attention to what I'm saying.

It was not my intent (regarding shale discussion) to make it seem like a bad thing.  I thought you were accusing me of "blind hatred" in which you were trying to make your point that he regrets some things. My point was he regrets nothing, if that makes sense. It wasn't supposed to be negative. I was just meaning he regrets nothing, he doesn't regret his bad actions, he doesn't regret his good actions, that was all.

Just because he isn't going to kill Anora doesn't mean he isn't crazy.

He is mad because of his fear of Orlais. So he kills the King who wants help from Orlais. I do not believe it was his intention to take the throne (well obviously not his intention, he couldn't kill his daughter). He wanted Orlais to stay the F out, and so took measures to insure that happens. Why blame the Grey Wardens for the death of the king? Because there were Orlais Grey Wardens at the borders trying to get in to help against the blight. Why Kill Cailan, yes he may have been a weak king, but Anora was ruling anyway. He killed Cailan because he wanted to bring in Orlesian troops. It was always about Orlais, that is why he is mad. He doesn't see the real threat, the blight, he only sees Orlais. So in my viewpoint, he is stark raving mad.

He saves Anora, good on him. He could also open up an animal shelter, spruce up the Alienage, give money to all the poor, and any other sort of good dead. The man is still a stark raving lunatic because everything he does is to stop Orlais from setting foot in the country, rather than facing the real problem, the blight.

[Asylumer]

fantasypisces wrote...

Yes a person is of course capable of experiencing regret later. My opinion of Loghain is during the game he never did. Now (if he had lived) 20 years down the line, he might.

• Wynne: And what of all the soldiers who died with their king?  Their lives were worth nothing to you.
• Loghain: You think so, do you?  I knew their names, mage, and where they came from.  I knew their families.
• Loghain: I do not know how you mages determine the value of things, but they were my men.  I know exactly how much I lost that day.

You don't think the man has experienced regret? Really?

I have been paying attention to what I'm saying.

It was not my intent (regarding shale discussion) to make it seem like a bad thing.  I thought you were accusing me of "blind hatred" in which you were trying to make your point that he regrets some things. My point was he regrets nothing, if that makes sense. It wasn't supposed to be negative. I was just meaning he regrets nothing, he doesn't regret his bad actions, he doesn't regret his good actions, that was all.

What are you using to come to this conclusion? That he doesn't come outright and say "I regret doing this or that?"

How about some dialogue I'm taking from the Toolset right now?

"You may, in time. If I have learned anything, it is that your decisions will always come back to haunt you."

"You think so? I suppose you've never been a soldier. The currency of war is life. You pay it and pray that the outcome is worthwhile."

Loghain: "To command an army, you have to be close enough to your men to know what you're risking, and still think of them as tools that might need to be thrown away."
PC: "That's monstrous!"
Loghain: "I never said otherwise."

OR

PC: "How can you possibly do both?"
Loghain: "Oh, everyone has a strategy for dealing with it. Most of the generals I've known took to drink. Some took to religion. It's a matter of personal choice, I suppose."

EDIT: How did I miss this gem?
"If anyone should make this sacrifice, it ought to be me. Maker knows, I have enough to atone for."

Nope... no regrets at all.

Just because he isn't going to kill Anora doesn't mean he isn't crazy.

It means he's still making rational decisions and not totally consumed by hatred for Orlais.

He is mad because of his fear of Orlais. So he kills the King who wants help from Orlais. I do not believe it was his intention to take the throne (well obviously not his intention, he couldn't kill his daughter). He wanted Orlais to stay the F out, and so took measures to insure that happens.

If we assume he did betray the king by quitting the field when it wasn't necessary, and after going through the toolset I'm about to toss that theory right out myself, then he did what he thought was necessary for Ferelden to be free.

He killed Cailan because he wanted to bring in Orlesian troops. It was always about Orlais, that is why he is mad. He doesn't see the real threat, the blight, he only sees Orlais. So in my viewpoint, he is stark raving mad.

And I think you're mad to not see how dangerous it is for Ferelden to bring in the Orlesians so soon after the occupation. Loghain dedicated himself to driving the Orlesians out of Ferelden after many years of monstrous tyranny. Cailen hardly ruled at all, and Loghain should let the fool king revisit his greatest nightmare upon Ferelden?

Loghain didn't even believe it was a true Blight, why would he let Cailen get away with that?

Modifié par Asylumer, 08 janvier 2010 - 06:33 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xandurpein wrote...
The question can be phrased: Would it be useful to have the former leader of the loosing faction in the civil war stand by the victor's side to show that Ferelden is truly united, or do you feel that it's more important to show everyone that the looser is punished. I believed in the former, you obviously in the latter.

Really? Would it be usefull to have the leader who betrayed and killed thousands punished for his crimes, to give the families and friends of those who suffered a piece of mind? To end the civil war compeltely. To show to Ferelden that law and justice still reign and treason will not be tolerated.

Loghain was the strongest link. With him dead, his supporters have no one to rally around. Leave him alive, and they might still think there's a chance.

How about troop morale? How would the soldiers feel, knowing that the same man that betrayed their friends and family is marching with them or leading htem into battle?

Arguing that Loghain is not needed, becuase you know that you managed to beat the game without him is ridiculous and dishonest and it's of course pure metagaming. It's like saying that the treaties with the elves and dwarves are useless as when I play I can reach Fort Drakon without them, or saying Wynne is a useless character because I never use her in my party.

At the time the choice is made all we know is that it'll be touch and go if the armies of Ferelden and a few Grey Wardens can defeat the enemy at Denerim or not. It's very reasonable to think that any help you can get is useful.

Bull****. You're the one using metagaming, not me.
From a roleplaying perspective, you dont' need him. He's just ONE man. Expendable. Replacable. Untrustworthy. Crazy. A liability.
Rhiordan sez Grey Wardens are needed - fair enough. But why make Loghain one? There's a whole town full of potential recruits. F'course, at that point you don't know the game doesn't give you a choice to make someone else a Warden, despite the apparent means to do so.
In short, the Landsmeet is poorly done in this regard, but there is really no sane reason to take Loghain on unless you're metagaming.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 08 janvier 2010 - 07:54 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Personally, I think the best punishment for Loghain is to be exhiled to Orlais to either serve as a court gimp, or sold to a ****house in Val Royeaux. But that's just me.

I shall have to mod this...

Now all I need is a very profound "NOoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" voice clip!


Addendum:  I really don't care if he regreats what he did or not. If he does - good for him and may the Maker have mercy on his soul. If not, may he rot in hell.
Eitehr way, I have no intention whatsoever to allow him to end up in the history books as a hero.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 08 janvier 2010 - 08:11 .

[Asylumer]

Going through the Toolset dialogue I came across this, something for all of us to think about:

If you bring up Ostagar

"Warden, Cailan was Maric's son. Had there been <emp>any</emp> chance of reaching him at Ostagar, I would have fought to my last breath to save him."

Comments: He believes this. It's not true, exactly, but he believes it.

[Xandurpein]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...
The question can be phrased: Would it be useful to have the former leader of the loosing faction in the civil war stand by the victor's side to show that Ferelden is truly united, or do you feel that it's more important to show everyone that the looser is punished. I believed in the former, you obviously in the latter.

Really? Would it be usefull to have the leader who betrayed and killed thousands punished for his crimes, to give the families and friends of those who suffered a piece of mind? To end the civil war compeltely. To show to Ferelden that law and justice still reign and treason will not be tolerated.

Loghain was the strongest link. With him dead, his supporters have no one to rally around. Leave him alive, and they might still think there's a chance.

How about troop morale? How would the soldiers feel, knowing that the same man that betrayed their friends and family is marching with them or leading htem into battle?

You base your whole argument on the fact that everyone in Ferelden believes Loghain to be evil like you do. It's made perfectly clear in the game that the vast majority of the people in Ferelden has no clue what Loghain has done. Not even the nobles who knows a lot more about politics than the commoners are decided until you can dig up enough make them. I seriously doubt there much of an issue with troop morale for pardoning Loghain at all.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...
Arguing that Loghain is not needed, becuase you know that you managed to beat the game without him is ridiculous and dishonest and it's of course pure metagaming. It's like saying that the treaties with the elves and dwarves are useless as when I play I can reach Fort Drakon without them, or saying Wynne is a useless character because I never use her in my party.

At the time the choice is made all we know is that it'll be touch and go if the armies of Ferelden and a few Grey Wardens can defeat the enemy at Denerim or not. It's very reasonable to think that any help you can get is useful.

Bull****. You're the one using metagaming, not me.
From a roleplaying perspective, you dont' need him. He's just ONE man. Expendable. Replacable. Untrustworthy. Crazy. A liability.
Rhiordan sez Grey Wardens are needed - fair enough. But why make Loghain one? There's a whole town full of potential recruits. F'course, at that point you don't know the game doesn't give you a choice to make someone else a Warden, despite the apparent means to do so.
In short, the Landsmeet is poorly done in this regard, but there is really no sane reason to take Loghain on unless you're metagaming.

Not everyone can become a Grey Warden. Duncan travels high and low to find good recruits. I do not know what it is he looks for, but it's abundantly clear that only rare individuals fit the bill, and that whatever it is that it takes does not include a high moral standing. Riordan is the senior Grey Warden and he says Loghain makes a good recruit. Fine - I bite the bullet and accept his judgement. It strips Loghain of his power and may even kill him.

I agree that the Landsmeet is not really that well concieved, but I can see lots of reasons to make Loghain a Grey Warden. He is NOT a frothing madman, despite what you would have us belive, and unless you think Riordan is a liar, he is a good candidate for the Grey Wardens. He is not just a big man with a sword, he has years of experience leading the war against Orlais - a tactical skill that few can equal. If he is stripped of his power and made to take the right oaths, then he is no longer a political problem.

All that remains is to decide what matters most. Your need for vengeance and punishment or your desire to make the Grey Wardens as strong as possible. I do not really hold it aginst those who want to roleplay it that they need vengeance more, but I still think it's a reasonable postiton to feel it's acceptable to make Loghain a Grey Warden if you are able to see beyond the need for vengeance.