91 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

[quote]1-"Word of God"?[/quote]

David Gaider.

 [quote]Loghain didn't need to see a chance at victory, he just needed a chance at warning the front lines and signalling an actual tactical retreat.[/quote]

Which would've accomplished... what? Cailan doomed the forces under his command by charging out into the open field of battle instead of waiting, with the walls of Ostagar protecting their left and right flanks, for the Darkspawn to come to them.

All that would've done is tell those men that Loghain's men were going "Yeah, the battle's ****ed, we're outta here". Unless you think they could cleave their way through the horde of Darkspawn surrounding them to retreat, because they sure as hell couldn't turn around and run towards the fortress -- it doesn't have a navigable path usable for large scale retreat.

The King's life is not more important then the kingdom's. That's what Maric told Loghain to adhere to, and Loghain followed that to the letter when he saw for certain how unwinnable the battle was. You'd rather he operate under the romantic notion of "Save the king" then the realist notion of "sacrifice one, save a thousand"

[quote]Cailan being a fool of a king is irrelevant to accusations of Loghain's treason.[/quote]

Actually, it's completely relevant. Cailan killed himself by fighting on the front lines and taking a grave risk.

[quote]Ostagar holds a massive chokepoint and from his high ground, he should have had plenty of time to see how large a force of darkspawn were marching towards Cailan's position.[/quote]

Except his line of sight was not perfect. He could only see enough to surmise the Darkspawn were still pouring out of the Wilds, but not enough to say for certain that the horde was too large for his plan to work until the beacon was lit long after the signal for it was given, Cailan's forces were cracking under pressure, and Cailan's men had doomed themselves by ruining the plan Loghain put forth and trapping themselves on 3 flanks.

You can't give a signal for retreat until you know for certain retreat is necessary, and that's only cemented for Loghain when the beacon is lit and he can see that the Anvil&Hammer strategy would not have worked if he had responded to the beacon.

Also, he's not on high ground. He's just hiding behind trees. And the retreat plan was made as a contingency, as any decent general will do. You don't go into battle without planning some method of retreat.

[quote]This is plenty of time to send scouts to order the tacticalwithdrawal of Cailan and his army, moving his own army in position to coordinate such a withdrawal. [/quote]

I didn't realize the Darkspawn were going to be cordial and let the scouts move about uninterrupted to tell Cailan the battle was ****ed.

[quote]Off-topic, but this does bring up a potential plothole in that how did a grey warden as old as Duncan not sense it was such a hopelessly large force?[/quote]

I'm not certain. If he did sense it, then it's damning for him because he didn't speak up in the war meeting saying such. If not, I'm not certain if it's a plot hole or not.

I know they can sense the presence of Darkspawn and hear the Archdemon's thoughts, but that's about it. Alistair says that some of the older Grey Wardens around Thedas can claim to understand its thoughts -- indicating it doesn't speak the Common Tongue -- but I don't know if Duncan could understand it.

[quote]Let's be clear, saying "Cailan's death was his own doing" is as naive as saying "Cailan's death was the ogre's doing".[/quote]

Yes, let's.

Cailan's the manchild who wanted to fight on the front lines with the Wardens all in the name of glory, ignoring the advice of the General of his armies and without an heir for the throne in place that wouldn't also bring up some messy political infighting.

Cailan's the manchild who told said General that his decision to fight on the front lines would happen and that, because he was king, he shouldn't be argued with on it anymore.

Cailan's the manchild that thought strategy was boring. He's the manchild that ruined Loghain's plan by charging out into the open to meet the Darkspawn when he was explicitly told to draw them to him. Drawing them to him does not mean "Expose your eastern and western flanks in doing so".

Cailan's the manchild that refused Eamon's message of assistance regarding Redcliffe's forces being there in less then a week, citing it as "Eamon wanting in on the glory"

He used only one volley of arrows, as opposed to having archers resting behind a well-formed shield wall firing arrows into the horde. He wasted the Mabari hounds, rendering them little more then fodder that took down at most 2 enemies per Mabari -- as opposed to them fighting beside the soldiers.

His death was entirely his fault.

[quote]Loghain was in possession of crucial intelligence of just how large of a force the darkspawn possessed and had a duty to warn his king.[/quote]

Okay, first off... while the soldiers did see the Darkspawn forces growing each time, it wasn't so much that they could know right off the bat that Ostagar's numbers were insufficient to combat the Darkspawn during the battle we take part in.

Secondly, Loghain doesn't realize the battle is completely ****ed until the beacon's lit, which cinches the notion in his mind. What's he supposed to do, fire an arrow into the sky? Send scouts out?

All of that is going to compromise his position, because he has to go around the fortress to access the King's Road that leads to Denerim.

[quote]The Orlesian bit is irrelevant to my charges of treason[/quote]

No, it isn't. Orlais' history is rife with expansionism and conquering nations weakened by fighting Darkspawn or other enemies of the realm.

[quote]Loghain refusing to accept Orlesian aid is just as foolish as Cailan wanting to fight on the front lines.[/quote]

No, his refusal isn't foolish. He can't trust Orlais, and indeed Celene is reputed to have a mindset similar to Drakon -- the first Emperor of Orlais -- which consists of expansionistic tendencies, per the DAII Collector's Edition Guide*. Indeed, seven years later they're beginning to revisit their desire to expand into Blight-weakened territory.

He deeply believes the Wardens to be working for Orlais, colored by many things. First is how the Wardens have helped Orlais and the Chantry historically.

The second is what's common knowledge about Sophia Dryden's rebellion -- which is that as far as anyone believed, she was a traitor that incited the Wardens to overthrow Arland.

The third is what happened in The Calling, while the fourth is everything the Wardens did and didn't do at Ostagar.

*Incidentally, however, Bioware's been very wishy-washy on how they want to portray Celene. One source of lore says she's an expansionist while another says she's a peace-loving monarch.

[quote]I don't care who you are, if you're going to admit that is what happened, you cannot say that isn't desertion, and it's a simple fact that desertion is a form of treason, thus making Loghain a traitor.[/quote]

Even when a previous king told his trusted general that if he had to leave his king to die in order to save the nation, he should do so? How is that desertion if you're following the orders of a king and trusted friend?

[quote]Not to mention the fact that Loghain goes on to lie about the events of the battle to both the people and the nobility, falsely blame the Grey Wardens and run a propaganda campaign against them, and tyrannically overthrow the Ferelden government. Treason is the verdict.[/quote]

While what he said were lies, they were lies that he believed to be true due to not having all the facts of the battle. Which you'd know if you read the entirety of my post instead of going "Nope, irrelevant! I'm right and you're wrong!"

[quote]madly attempted a tyrannical overthrow of the kingdom[/quote]

Because wanting a united nation to stand behind their general as they take on the Darkspawn with only themselves and, if necessary, non-Orlesian aid means someone wants the nation to burn.

Because quelling a civil war that the Bannorn started so as to have a united nation -- since you cannot fight a war on two fronts and easily succeed -- to fight the Darkspawn means someone is trying to raze the nation to the ground.

[quote]those are the indisputable facts. [/quote]

Nope.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:26 .

[EpicTragedy]

Addai67 wrote...

EpicTragedy wrote...

There's literally no reason to surrender to her though.

It's "fine" maybe in the sense that corrupt politicians today are "fine" because they don't entirely destroy the countries they are a part of because preserving it is always in their best interest. They don't really care for what's best for the people though, only what is best for themselves.

You're incredibly outnumbered.  The fight is very difficult to win, which should tell you something.

Anora's rule is good for the people.  You can't get around the results, even if it doesn't fit your preconceptions.

Almost every fight in the game is an "underdog fight". The high dragon, flemeth, and the archdemon are all even more fearsome. That's no reason for us to surrender to them though.

It might be "good", but having Alistair as her King would be better. We don't really see any results here, the only thing we get is the epilogue, so labeling my disagreement as "preconceptions" is hardly meaningful. 

Modifié par EpicTragedy, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:26 .

[EpicTragedy]

Addai67 wrote...

EpicTragedy wrote...

Tactical retreat? Are you serious? It was a planned strategic withdrawal that used Cailan and his army as bait. How do you not see that as treason? His regretting it or not is entirely irrelevant to the fact that he did it.  His failure to send men to rescue Cailan or sound the retreat isn't a political shortcoming, it's a military one.

Not to derail the thread (where's my Loghain meme?) but Loghain had only planned a retreat scenario as contingency.  He did not set Cailan up to die.  Hence why he was arguing with him about being on the front lines.

He set up a battleplan that used Cailan as the bait and then abandoned him. Even if they were hopelessly outnumbered as you argue, which isn't necessarily known, rather than flanking he could have easily reinforced and held the choke long enough for an actual tactical retreat. What Loghain did in fact do was not a tactical retreat, it was plan and simple desertion no matter how much you try to butter it up. 

The horde was much larger than anyone anticipated.  If you look at the hillside, you can see darkspawn pouring through the wilds with no end in sight.  Any flanking maneuver would be overwhelmed and surrounded in short order.  They hadn't seen them earlier, and the Wardens hadn't sensed them, because they come up from underground.

I agree with you, to reiterate, that there's no defense for Anora turning you over to Cauthrien.  Even if she feared for her life, at that point her life is more secure than the Warden's.

-I think both of you misunderstood what I was getting at by calling it a planned strategic withdrawal, but it was my fault I guess for not being more specific. I wasn't trying to convey that I thought he planned before-hand to set Cailan up and get him killed so I apologize if that's what it sounded like (which I grant, the word strategic seems to imply, which was probably a poor word choice on my behalf). Passing it off as a "tactical retreat" is a joke though because he never even engaged his forces and it was the engagement of Cailan's forces that allowed his army easy escape. 

-This may explain the lack of detection, but even if Loghain had very good reasons to skeedaddle himself, it doesn't make him any less of a traitor to his king and country for his actions after the battle, nor does it excuse him from being a deserter and a traitor for said retreat during the battle. At the very best interpretation for Loghain, he was put in a terrible situation but still chose to desert the field without doing anything as it still doesn't explain the fact that no messenger was sent either and that nothing, literally nothing was done when he did notice the size of the horde.

Modifié par EpicTragedy, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:35 .

[EpicTragedy]

[quote]
 [quote]Loghain didn't need to see a chance at victory, he just needed a chance at warning the front lines and signalling an actual tactical retreat.[/quote]

Which would've accomplished... what? Cailan doomed the forces under his command by charging out into the open field of battle instead of waiting, with the walls of Ostagar protecting their left and right flanks, for the Darkspawn to come to them.

All that would've done is tell those men that Loghain's men were going "Yeah, the battle's ****ed, we're outta here". Unless you think they could cleave their way through the horde of Darkspawn surrounding them to retreat, because they sure as hell couldn't turn around and run towards the fortress -- it doesn't have a navigable path usable for large scale retreat.

The King's life is not more important then the kingdom's. That's what Maric told Loghain to adhere to, and Loghain followed that to the letter when he saw for certain how unwinnable the battle was. You'd rather he operate under the romantic notion of "Save the king" then the realist notion of "sacrifice one, save a thousand"
[/quote]

This is all contigent on when Loghain noticed the hopelessness of winning the battle, but I am in complete agreement with you that Cailan is a total and utter fool of a general for charging out of his fortress chokepoint that protected his flank. It's unfair to say I think Loghain should have romantically "saved the king" because we don't have all the facts. If we interpret the battle as hopeless as possible and that no messenger or detatchment could have saved Cailan beyond the entirety of Loghain's army, then I would sympathize with Loghain withdrawing as his best option in a ****ty situation. This doesn't excuse him from being a deserter or failing to prevent himself from being in such a position to begin with. He may have had good reasons to quit the field and desert his king, but he did desert his king nonetheless. We really don't have the specific details of the battle though. If it really was as hopeless as your interpretation though, I don't really begrudge him for his actions on the field. I still begrudge him however for letting himself be put in such a situation when he is supposed to be a genius general. 

[quote]

[quote]Cailan being a fool of a king is irrelevant to accusations of Loghain's treason.[/quote]

Actually, it's completely relevant. Cailan killed himself by fighting on the front lines and taking a grave risk.
[/quote]

It isn't relevant at all to Loghain's deserting the field - Loghain deserted the field and that is a simple fact - talk of whether he was justified in doing so or not is relevant to Cailan's foolishness, but the mere fact that he did quit the field is irrelevant to such facts.

It might be relevant to analyzing whether Loghain was justified in quitting the field and whether you or I should have done the same, but that is just one of the charges of which I pressed against Loghain for treason

[quote]


[quote]Ostagar holds a massive chokepoint and from his high ground, he should have had plenty of time to see how large a force of darkspawn were marching towards Cailan's position.[/quote]

Except his line of sight was not perfect. He could only see enough to surmise the Darkspawn were still pouring out of the Wilds, but not enough to say for certain that the horde was too large for his plan to work until the beacon was lit long after the signal for it was given, Cailan's forces were cracking under pressure, and Cailan's men had doomed themselves by ruining the plan Loghain put forth and trapping themselves on 3 flanks.

You can't give a signal for retreat until you know for certain retreat is necessary, and that's only cemented for Loghain when the beacon is lit and he can see that the Anvil&Hammer strategy would not have worked if he had responded to the beacon.

Also, he's not on high ground. He's just hiding behind trees. And the retreat plan was made as a contingency, as any decent general will do. You don't go into battle without planning some method of retreat.

[/quote] If a formal Bioware rep has canonically confirmed that the battle would have been lost even with Loghain's support, I won't dispute the size of the darkspawn horde. Even accepting that the battle was lost from the start though, I don't know whether or not the time-specifics of your battle analysis are true or not and it's not my place to debate them - there is no specific evidence in the game to confirm either way the details of just how soon Loghain noticed the battle was lost or whether or not there was enough time for him to do anything after coming to said realization[quote]

[quote]This is plenty of time to send scouts to order the tacticalwithdrawal of Cailan and his army, moving his own army in position to coordinate such a withdrawal. [/quote]

I didn't realize the Darkspawn were going to be cordial and let the scouts move about uninterrupted to tell Cailan the battle was ****ed.[/quote]

Again, if this happens after Cailan has already been encircled by darkspawn, then you have a completely reasonable point. If the messenger is sent at an earlier time however, whether he would have such a trouble or not is entirely dependent on how soon Loghain would have noticed, hence I can't debate such details any further as mentioned above.[quote][quote]Let's be clear, saying "Cailan's death was his own doing" is as naive as saying "Cailan's death was the ogre's doing".[/quote]
Cailan's the manchild who wanted to fight on the front lines with the Wardens all in the name of glory, ignoring the advice of the General of his armies and without an heir for the throne in place that wouldn't also bring up some messy political infighting.

Cailan's the manchild who told said General that his decision to fight on the front lines would happen and that, because he was king, he shouldn't be argued with on it anymore.

Cailan's the manchild that thought strategy was boring. He's the manchild that ruined Loghain's plan by charging out into the open to meet the Darkspawn when he was explicitly told to draw them to him. Drawing them to him does not mean "Expose your eastern and western flanks in doing so".

Cailan's the manchild that refused Eamon's message of assistance regarding Redcliffe's forces being there in less then a week, citing it as "Eamon wanting in on the glory"

He used only one volley of arrows, as opposed to having archers resting behind a well-formed shield wall firing arrows into the horde. He wasted the Mabari hounds, rendering them little more then fodder that took down at most 2 enemies per Mabari -- as opposed to them fighting beside the soldiers.

His death was entirely his fault.
[/quote]

Yes, we are all aware Cailan is completely incompetent in matters of warfare (and state as far as I know). He is literally the definition of someone you don't want leading your army. 

Your criticism about his ignoring Eamon's aid is no different than Loghain ignoring Orlesia's aid however.

In spite of his total incompetence and foolishness, you would be entirely mistaken to say his death was entirely his fault. I am not arguing Cailan was not responsible for his death, but to say he is soley responsible for it is a total mistake. The darkspawn, Cailan, and Loghain were all at least partially responsible. Loghain made a commitment to ride to his aid in attacking the darkspawn flank, one that he failed to follow through with. This earns him partial responsibility for quitting the field with a sizable portion of Cailan's army that he had expected to have otherwise. [quote]



[quote]Loghain was in possession of crucial intelligence of just how large of a force the darkspawn possessed and had a duty to warn his king.[/quote]

Okay, first off... while the soldiers did see the Darkspawn forces growing each time, it wasn't so much that they could know right off the bat that Ostagar's numbers were insufficient to combat the Darkspawn during the battle we take part in.

Secondly, Loghain doesn't realize the battle is completely ****ed until the beacon's lit, which cinches the notion in his mind. What's he supposed to do, fire an arrow into the sky? Send scouts out?

All of that is going to compromise his position, because he has to go around the fortress to access the King's Road that leads to Denerim.[/quote]

I'll reuse my answer to previous concerns, the game is vague about when Loghain realized the battle was lost. Debating vague interpretations will get us nowhere. If there is a formal canonical statement from a Bioware dev that what the specific details of what you say is true, then I have no problem accepting them.[quote]

[quote]The Orlesian bit is irrelevant to my charges of treason[/quote]

No, it isn't. Orlais' history is rife with expansionism and conquering nations weakened by fighting Darkspawn or other enemies of the realm.
[/quote]
My original charge of treason was desertion in the battlefield. To this, Orlesia is entirely irrelevant. If we want to discuss other charges of treason that happen while Loghain is ruling in Denerim, then yes Orlesia is relevant.[quote]

[quote]Loghain refusing to accept Orlesian aid is just as foolish as Cailan wanting to fight on the front lines.[/quote]
No, his refusal isn't foolish. He can't trust Orlais, and indeed Celene is reputed to have a mindset similar to Drakon -- the first Emperor of Orlais -- which consists of expansionistic tendencies, per the DAII Collector's Edition Guide*. Indeed, seven years later they're beginning to revisit their desire to expand into Blight-weakened territory.

He deeply believes the Wardens to be working for Orlais, colored by many things. First is how the Wardens have helped Orlais and the Chantry historically.

The second is what's common knowledge about Sophia Dryden's rebellion -- which is that as far as anyone believed, she was a traitor that incited the Wardens to overthrow Arland.

The third is what happened in The Calling, while the fourth is everything the Wardens did and didn't do at Ostagar.

*Incidentally, however, Bioware's been very wishy-washy on how they want to portray Celene. One source of lore says she's an expansionist while another says she's a peace-loving monarch.
[/quote]
There is no strategic reason to turn away supplementary Orlesian forces. If you don't trust them, put them in the Vanguard or something. Loghain was letting his personal bitterness affect his command on this one and there is no way around it when you refuse any form of aid whatsoever. If anything, this just made Orlais stronger - it is just Ferelden forces that bleed against the blight. If he accepted Orlesian aid, Orlais would bleed against the blight as well. There is no rational explanation for taking the full damage of a blight yourself when you can share it with a rival. [quote]
[quote]I don't care who you are, if you're going to admit that is what happened, you cannot say that isn't desertion, and it's a simple fact that desertion is a form of treason, thus making Loghain a traitor.[/quote]

Even when a previous king told his trusted general that if he had to leave his king to die in order to save the nation, he should do so? How is that desertion if you're following the orders of a king and trusted friend?
[/quote]

You keep mentioning this quote of Maric's and while it is relevant to Loghain's character development, dead kings do not rule. If Loghain had done this to Maric after Maric telling him such a thing, it wouldn't be desertion. If Cailan had told Loghain what Maric told him, it wouldn't be desertion. Neither of these is the case though. Loghain had a duty to protect, serve, and obey his king. He failed to do all three when he quit the field, even if he may have had good reasons to do so. 
[quote]
[quote]Not to mention the fact that Loghain goes on to lie about the events of the battle to both the people and the nobility, falsely blame the Grey Wardens and run a propaganda campaign against them, and tyrannically overthrow the Ferelden government. Treason is the verdict.[/quote]

While what he said were lies, they were lies that he believed to be true due to not having all the facts of the battle. Which you'd know if you read the entirety of my post instead of going "Nope, irrelevant! I'm right and you're wrong!"
[/quote] 
I'm sorry if that sounded like what I was saying about the Orlesian bit, I was merely conveying that it was irrelevant to the specific claims made against Loghain for quitting the battlefield. They are entirely relevant to any such claim brought against his competence for refusing Orlesian aid or his reasons for governing how he did. 

I highly doubt he truly believed all of the propaganda he spread. Even if we grant that he did though, it doesn't bode well for his sanity or competence for somehow becoming so out of touch with reality. 
[quote]

[quote]madly attempted a tyrannical overthrow of the kingdom[/quote]

Because wanting a united nation to stand behind their general as they take on the Darkspawn with only themselves and, if necessary, non-Orlesian aid means someone wants the nation to burn.

Because quelling a civil war that the Bannorn started so as to have a united nation -- since you cannot fight a war on two fronts and easily succeed -- to fight the Darkspawn means someone is trying to raze the nation to the ground.
[/quote]

He wanted a united nation to stand against the darkspawn, yes. He also wanted to be the sole tyrant of that nation. Even if we do not criticize his end goals, the means which he pursued those goals are tyrannical and led him to wage war against his own country in his mad grab at power. I believe he betrayed his country in his granduer. I won't doubt he is a tragic character who wanted to do good, but he ultimately and utterly failed in such intentions and ended up hurting Ferelden far more than he helped it with the civil war.

The Bannorn is the ruling body of Ferelden, and metaphorically the will of both the people and the country. He had no claim to the throne, he was an illegitimate tyrant who siezed power for himself and waged a war on his own country when they rejected his tyrannical imposition of power. His intentions grant him pity, but don't excuse his crimes.

Even though I still think of Loghain as a villain, I concede that I'm much more sympathetic towards him after these conversations with the three of you than I was before. I'll have to rethink whether I should execute him or let him live after these conversations, even though I still lean strongly towards executing him. 

Modifié par EpicTragedy, 23 janvier 2013 - 08:28 .

[Addai]

EpicTragedy wrote...

Almost every fight in the game is an "underdog fight". The high dragon, flemeth, and the archdemon are all even more fearsome. That's no reason for us to surrender to them though.

You usually aren't given an opportunity.  Here there is a dialogue choice to do so, so it's actually an option.  Likewise with Flemeth BTW.

It might be "good", but having Alistair as her King would be better. We don't really see any results here, the only thing we get is the epilogue, so labeling my disagreement as "preconceptions" is hardly meaningful. 

The epilogue is results.  It's metagame knowledge so might not affect an RP choice, but empirically you can't say that Anora's rule is bad for the people, because there's evidence to the contrary.

[Addai]

EpicTragedy wrote...

-I think both of you misunderstood what I was getting at by calling it a planned strategic withdrawal, but it was my fault I guess for not being more specific. I wasn't trying to convey that I thought he planned before-hand to set Cailan up and get him killed so I apologize if that's what it sounded like (which I grant, the word strategic seems to imply, which was probably a poor word choice on my behalf). Passing it off as a "tactical retreat" is a joke though because he never even engaged his forces and it was the engagement of Cailan's forces that allowed his army easy escape.

A tactical decision isn't only made after your forces are engaged.  In fact you'd better not commit forces if you're reasonably sure they're going to be decimated and not achieve any objective, which is what Loghain says was the case here.  He says and Gaider confirms that if he could have saved Cailan, he would have.

-This may explain the lack of detection, but even if Loghain had very good reasons to skeedaddle himself, it doesn't make him any less of a traitor to his king and country for his actions after the battle, nor does it excuse him from being a deserter and a traitor for said retreat during the battle. At the very best interpretation for Loghain, he was put in a terrible situation but still chose to desert the field without doing anything as it still doesn't explain the fact that no messenger was sent either and that nothing, literally nothing was done when he did notice the size of the horde.

Having to choose whether to throw your men at a hopeless battle for the principle and a glorious suicide, or pull out to fight another day, is not a choice I would ever want to make.  How do you send a messenger through a completely overwhelmed battlefield?  And what good would it do, since the layout of the fortress and Cailan's position looks to have had no avenue of retreat?  It was a death trap, which is exactly what Loghain told Cailan.  Given the king's determination to fight there anyway, Loghain made a battle plan that could have worked if the darkspawn were in similar numbers to what they had seen in previous engagements.

[EpicTragedy]

Addai67 wrote...

EpicTragedy wrote...

Almost every fight in the game is an "underdog fight". The high dragon, flemeth, and the archdemon are all even more fearsome. That's no reason for us to surrender to them though.

You usually aren't given an opportunity.  Here there is a dialogue choice to do so, so it's actually an option.  Likewise with Flemeth BTW.

It might be "good", but having Alistair as her King would be better. We don't really see any results here, the only thing we get is the epilogue, so labeling my disagreement as "preconceptions" is hardly meaningful. 

The epilogue is results.  It's metagame knowledge so might not affect an RP choice, but empirically you can't say that Anora's rule is bad for the people, because there's evidence to the contrary.

The epilogue doesn't really specify the details of her rule's affects on the people. It mentions Ferelden's trade prospers from new trade agreements that increases the funds of the royal treasury. She then goes on to rebuild Denerim with said funds. The army was restored and new laws were passed "encouraging" freeholders to produce more sufficient harvests (which basically translates into higher taxes if I'm interpreting it right). Plans are conceived for a university. She builds a monument to her father and finally, she refuses to marry anyone, which continues to fail to produce an heir.

These go well with the epilogue noting her as an adept ruler as a whole, as most of them are positive:

-Monument to her father is rather neutral (0)
-Refusing to marry or produce an heir is not good (-1)
-Army restored (obvious, but +1)
-Increasing foreign trade and government revenues (+1)
-Capital rebuilt with said funds from increased revenues (obvious, but +1)
-Laws passed encouraging freeholders to produce more sufficient harvests (+1/-1)
-Plans for University (+1)

Inevitably, most of these will benefit the people indirectly through a trickle-down effect or at the very least will not be to the people's disadvantage (with possibly two or three exceptions). However, nothing is said about social reforms or administrative decisions that benefit the people directly, because as we both know, they are not her primary concern. The elves ares till in poverty in the alienage and she seems to not have any sort of progressive agenda for the common people. She rules for herself, is adept at it, and consequently the people as a whole will benefit from this, but this is not the best outcome for the people. I guess I shouldn't say "bad" for the people, but it's not ideal for the people and she doesn't really make them her priority either. Her priority is preserving her own authority and maintaining the status quo is the best way to do this.

The biggest issue with her rule is the refusing to remarry and attempt to produce an heir despite having many prospective suitors, both Ferelden and foreigners. If she dies without an heir and leaves the country in chaos, then all of the above is really irrelevant and you could say she was in fact bad for the people. This is just speculation though, but it's something to keep in mind given her age.

Modifié par EpicTragedy, 23 janvier 2013 - 06:34 .

[EpicTragedy]

Addai67 wrote...

EpicTragedy wrote...

-I think both of you misunderstood what I was getting at by calling it a planned strategic withdrawal, but it was my fault I guess for not being more specific. I wasn't trying to convey that I thought he planned before-hand to set Cailan up and get him killed so I apologize if that's what it sounded like (which I grant, the word strategic seems to imply, which was probably a poor word choice on my behalf). Passing it off as a "tactical retreat" is a joke though because he never even engaged his forces and it was the engagement of Cailan's forces that allowed his army easy escape.

A tactical decision isn't only made after your forces are engaged.  In fact you'd better not commit forces if you're reasonably sure they're going to be decimated and not achieve any objective, which is what Loghain says was the case here.  He says and Gaider confirms that if he could have saved Cailan, he would have.

-This may explain the lack of detection, but even if Loghain had very good reasons to skeedaddle himself, it doesn't make him any less of a traitor to his king and country for his actions after the battle, nor does it excuse him from being a deserter and a traitor for said retreat during the battle. At the very best interpretation for Loghain, he was put in a terrible situation but still chose to desert the field without doing anything as it still doesn't explain the fact that no messenger was sent either and that nothing, literally nothing was done when he did notice the size of the horde.

Having to choose whether to throw your men at a hopeless battle for the principle and a glorious suicide, or pull out to fight another day, is not a choice I would ever want to make.  How do you send a messenger through a completely overwhelmed battlefield?  And what good would it do, since the layout of the fortress and Cailan's position looks to have had no avenue of retreat?  It was a death trap, which is exactly what Loghain told Cailan.  Given the king's determination to fight there anyway, Loghain made a battle plan that could have worked if the darkspawn were in similar numbers to what they had seen in previous engagements.

-Yes, but this was a strategic retreat, not a tactical one. He had no intentions of reengaging the darkspawn any time soon, as a tactical retreat would imply. He strategically withdrew his forces off the front to the capital to reconsolidate power and prepare a more capable army. That isn't a tactical decision, it's a strategic one.

-The fact of it being overwhelmed is a matter of time specifics regarding when Loghain noticed. If he truly didn't notice until the beacon was lit, his best course of action would have been to simply retreat as he did (as I noted in another post). It's only a death trap after Cailan charges out of his chokepoint. Again, this ****ty situation might justify Loghain's actions on the battlefield, but it doesn't change them.

Further, why did Bioware bother ignoring all of these details in-game, leaving them vague, and portray Loghain as they did, if they were just going to ad-hoc all these details later on? Not the best of their decisions.

Modifié par EpicTragedy, 23 janvier 2013 - 06:49 .

[Addai]

EpicTragedy wrote...
new laws were passed "encouraging" freeholders to produce more sufficient harvests (which basically translates into higher taxes if I'm interpreting it right).

How do higher taxes encourage more harvests?  I would say it's more likely tax breaks on land development, government subsidy for seed crops, etc.

All of these things other than her not marrying are positive, even highly progressive, developments for what is essentially still an agrarian feudal society.  Other than slapping a gold sticker on her rule, not sure what else you'd look for to convey positive results.  No, she's not substantially changing elf-human relations.  She's fairly conservative on such things, in contrast to Alistair.  That's a negative or positive depending on perspective.

The biggest issue with her rule is the refusing to remarry and attempt to produce an heir despite having many prospective suitors, both Ferelden and foreigners. If she dies without an heir and leaves the country in chaos, then all of the above is really irrelevant and you could say she was in fact bad for the people. This is just speculation though, but it's something to keep in mind given her age.

If babies are your first concern, Alistair is not your candidate.

[Addai]

EpicTragedy wrote...

-Yes, but this was a strategic retreat, not a tactical one. He had no intentions of reengaging the darkspawn any time soon, as a tactical retreat would imply. He strategically withdrew his forces off the front to the capital to reconsolidate power and prepare a more capable army. That isn't a tactical decision, it's a strategic one.

Whatever.  Semantics.  Essentially, he made the decision based on his assessment of the field and on not wanting to throw his men at a hopeless battle.

-The fact of it being overwhelmed is a matter of time specifics regarding when Loghain noticed. If he truly didn't notice until the beacon was lit, his best course of action would have been to simply retreat as he did (as I noted in another post). It's only a death trap after Cailan charges out of his chokepoint. Again, this ****ty situation might justify Loghain's actions on the battlefield, but it doesn't change them.

I never said he didn't notice it until the beacon was lit. That's when he made his final decision to leave (according to Gaider), but I assume he had a good enough view to see that it was lost before then.  Cailan had a better view- you can see the horde clearly from the bridge above his position- so I'm not sure what you're expecting Loghain could have done here.  Again, from what I can see, Cailan had no avenue of retreat.

Further, why did Bioware bother ignoring all of these details in-game, leaving them vague, and portray Loghain as they did, if they were just going to ad-hoc all these details later on? Not the best of their decisions.

Mary Kirby, who wrote Loghain's in-game stuff, said that they wanted to provide a villain that people could easily kill.  It's for the casual player who just wants to stomp the bad guys and get the girl.  David Gaider came on the forum to discuss Loghain's motivations more in depth, and how he views events in and around Ostagar, for those of us who had questions about it.

edit- Sorry if I come off short here, but I've done "Loghain at Ostagar" so many times I could type it in my sleep.  You have good questions and observations, however, so I'm coming out of retirement. 

Modifié par Addai67, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:21 .

[EpicTragedy]

Addai67 wrote...

EpicTragedy wrote...
new laws were passed "encouraging" freeholders to produce more sufficient harvests (which basically translates into higher taxes if I'm interpreting it right).

How do higher taxes encourage more harvests?  I would say it's more likely tax breaks on land development, government subsidy for seed crops, etc.

All of these things other than her not marrying are positive, even highly progressive, developments for what is essentially still an agrarian feudal society.  Other than slapping a gold sticker on her rule, not sure what else you'd look for to convey positive results.  No, she's not substantially changing elf-human relations.  She's fairly conservative on such things, in contrast to Alistair.  That's a negative or positive depending on perspective.

The biggest issue with her rule is the refusing to remarry and attempt to produce an heir despite having many prospective suitors, both Ferelden and foreigners. If she dies without an heir and leaves the country in chaos, then all of the above is really irrelevant and you could say she was in fact bad for the people. This is just speculation though, but it's something to keep in mind given her age.

If babies are your first concern, Alistair is not your candidate.

I guess I interpreted it as she gave incentives to produce better harvest yields and in a percentage based tax system, this would result in a higher tax to the state. Your explanation is just as likely though, if not moreso. 

The monument to her father is hardly positive. Rebuilding the destroyed capital city and the national army is a given, if you want to remain a nation you need a capital and an army (with the exception of Antiva). The university is arguably the only highly progressive thing she's done. The increase in trade is fiscally sound, but not exactly progressive. It's possible whatever she did to increase crop yields is progressive, but as they are vague on the details, it's impossible to say. Having a large portion of your capital in poverty and doing nothing about it is hardly a matter of good or bad perspective.

Why is Alistair not a good candidate for producing an heir? Unless you're trying to say he's celibate or sterile, I don't know what you're getting at. He's much better off than Anora at this because 1. We have no evidence he rejects getting married, 2. We have no reason to believe he is sterile, and 3. He biologically has more time left to produce an heir than Anora.

Modifié par EpicTragedy, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:44 .

[Addai]

Grey Wardens have much reduced fertility due to the taint. He also has much reduced lifespan for the same reason.  He indicates this himself when he's dumping a female Warden, saying he'll need to marry someone who isn't tainted so that she has a chance to get pregnant and raise the child since he's not going to be around long to do it.

Keep in mind that everything Anora does is with a country that has been decimated by Blight and civil war, and wasn't that wealthy to begin with.

Modifié par Addai67, 23 janvier 2013 - 08:06 .

[EpicTragedy]

Addai67 wrote...

EpicTragedy wrote...

-Yes, but this was a strategic retreat, not a tactical one. He had no intentions of reengaging the darkspawn any time soon, as a tactical retreat would imply. He strategically withdrew his forces off the front to the capital to reconsolidate power and prepare a more capable army. That isn't a tactical decision, it's a strategic one.

Whatever.  Semantics.  Essentially, he made the decision based on his assessment of the field and on not wanting to throw his men at a hopeless battle.

-The fact of it being overwhelmed is a matter of time specifics regarding when Loghain noticed. If he truly didn't notice until the beacon was lit, his best course of action would have been to simply retreat as he did (as I noted in another post). It's only a death trap after Cailan charges out of his chokepoint. Again, this ****ty situation might justify Loghain's actions on the battlefield, but it doesn't change them.

I never said he didn't notice it until the beacon was lit. That's when he made his final decision to leave (according to Gaider), but I assume he had a good enough view to see that it was lost before then.  Cailan had a better view- you can see the horde clearly from the bridge above his position- so I'm not sure what you're expecting Loghain could have done here.  Again, from what I can see, Cailan had no avenue of retreat.

Further, why did Bioware bother ignoring all of these details in-game, leaving them vague, and portray Loghain as they did, if they were just going to ad-hoc all these details later on? Not the best of their decisions.

Mary Kirby, who wrote Loghain's in-game stuff, said that they wanted to provide a villain that people could easily kill.  It's for the casual player who just wants to stomp the bad guys and get the girl.  David Gaider came on the forum to discuss Loghain's motivations more in depth, and how he views events in and around Ostagar, for those of us who had questions about it.

edit- Sorry if I come off short here, but I've done "Loghain at Ostagar" so many times I could type it in my sleep.  You have good questions and observations, however, so I'm coming out of retirement. 

-Cailan could have retreated back through the gates of Ostagar..? Unless I'm literally suffering from Amnesia right, now, Ostagar isn't just a wall Cailan put his army below. He had an easy avenue of retreat through a chokepoint defended on both sides by fortress walls he held. 

-Even in my first playthrough, I felt compelled to execute Loghain, but I didn't enjoy doing it. It was just something that needed to be done, he needed to pay for his crimes. In the actual Landsmeet speech and after he loses, it is quite clear he has gone mad with power. I'm thankful for the information about Ostagar though because it really is vague in the game about the details.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

EpicTragedy wrote...

-Cailan could have retreated back through the gates of Ostagar..? Unless I'm literally suffering from Amnesia right, now, Ostagar isn't just a wall Cailan put his army below. He had an easy avenue of retreat through a chokepoint defended on both sides by fortress walls he held.

I think that valley's a dead end. I'll have to check more carefully next time I play through RtO, though.

Edit: By the way, the term for misremembering minor details like this is actually confabulation.

Edit2: I just checked. Yeah, that valley's a dead end.

-Even in my first playthrough, I felt compelled to execute Loghain, but I didn't enjoy doing it. It was just something that needed to be done, he needed to pay for his crimes. In the actual Landsmeet speech and after he loses, it is quite clear he has gone mad with power. I'm thankful for the information about Ostagar though because it really is vague in the game about the details.

Mad with power? If anything, he's gone mad with weakness. He's unable to get the Bannorn in line with speech, has to sell people into slavery to get the funds to take them down, sides with Howe in order to get additional power in order to keep the country in line, and then if you won the Landsmeet vote, it's probably because you've managed to get that last decision to backfire on him. The whole point to his actions being that he's quite convinced his country is heading to hell in a handbasket without him leading it some other direction, and he's quite desparate to find some way to make that not happen.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 27 janvier 2013 - 02:44 .

[Addai]

EpicTragedy wrote...

-Cailan could have retreated back through the gates of Ostagar..? Unless I'm literally suffering from Amnesia right, now, Ostagar isn't just a wall Cailan put his army below. He had an easy avenue of retreat through a chokepoint defended on both sides by fortress walls he held.

It's hard to tell because of gameplay constraints, but it looks to me like there's no avenue of retreat behind him.  Also he ordered a full charge, so orderly retreat was probably never an option.  More like a rout, with just as deadly results.

-Even in my first playthrough, I felt compelled to execute Loghain, but I didn't enjoy doing it. It was just something that needed to be done, he needed to pay for his crimes. In the actual Landsmeet speech and after he loses, it is quite clear he has gone mad with power. I'm thankful for the information about Ostagar though because it really is vague in the game about the details.

Even if he's recruited, the Landsmeet always finds him guilty of something and he's more or less disgraced.  He loses land and title, is forced to join an order that will mean his early death even if he survives the Blight.  You also have dialogue options with him that tell him that you only wanted to use him or that a quick death was too good for him.

I don't see him as gone mad with power.  I think it's the opposite, he is trying to save Ferelden and protect Anora, and sees it slipping away so he's grasping.  It's his inability to see that there's a compromise that makes him so rigid.  That's why, IMO, he's so relieved when he can eventually trust that there is a way out that might not lead to Ferelden's destruction.

Modifié par Addai67, 23 janvier 2013 - 11:51 .

[TEWR]

[quote]EpicTragedy wrote...

I still begrudge him however for letting himself be put in such a situation when he is supposed to be a genius general. [/quote]

Right, because Loghain's supposed to have an omniscient understanding of the horde's strength for the upcoming battle when all of their scouting bands have been systematically taken by surprise and overwhelmed. 

The horde's strength prior to the battle we take part in was always manageable. Their numbers would increase, but not by so much that they outnumbered Ferelden's forces.

[quote]EpicTragedy wrote...

It isn't relevant at all to Loghain's deserting the field - Loghain deserted the field and that is a simple fact - talk of whether he was justified in doing so or not is relevant to Cailan's foolishness, but the mere fact that he did quit the field is irrelevant to such facts. 

It might be relevant to analyzing whether Loghain was justified in quitting the field and whether you or I should have done the same, but that is just one of the charges of which I pressed against Loghain for treason[/quote]

I don't see how it can be treason if you know for a fact that the king was beyond saving, due to all of what he's done and the strength of the Darkspawn. I don't see how it's treason if you're upholding the order a previous king gave you. 

For it to be treason, it'd have to be premeditated in the sense that Loghain had set up the entire battle to abandon Cailan.

He didn't.

[quote]Even accepting that the battle was lost from the start though, I don't know whether or not the time-specifics of your battle analysis are true or not and it's not my place to debate them - there is no specific evidence in the game to confirm either way the details of just how soon Loghain noticed the battle was lost or whether or not there was enough time for him to do anything after coming to said realization[/quote]

Duncan will say that Alistair and the Warden have less then an hour to get to the top of the Tower, and that's under the belief that the Tower is not under attack.

Factor in having to fight Darkspawn through the levels and Alistair's comment on how they've surely missed the signal, then the beacon did come too late.

And as I said, Cailan exposed his 3 flanks. Had Loghain charged upon immediately seeing what he did -- and let's assume he would've known how bad the battle was before the beacon -- he would've been caught smack dab in the middle of that. He would've had to fight the Darkspawn on four flanks just to get to Cailan, whilst maintaining a safe avenue of retreat. 

Because the Darkspawn would've begun surrounding Loghain's men, swallowing them up as they fought.

He couldn't have saved Cailan in this scenario. The only way Cailan could've possibly have been saved is if the Darkspawn's numbers were small enough for there to have been a chance at victory.

[quote]Your criticism about his ignoring Eamon's aid is no different than Loghain ignoring Orlesia's aid however.[/quote]

It's completely different. One person is refusing the aid of his uncle's personal forces for reasons that can be summed up twofold:

1) "Eamon just wants in on the glory!"
2) Cailan probably doesn't even want Eamon there because of the argument they had earlier over the lack of an heir -- which as you find out later on in the game, points more to Cailan having the problems then Anora.

Loghain doesn't want Orlais' army in Ferelden because their history is rife with expansionistic tendencies towards nations that have been weakened by their enemies. Every Blight that Orlais has "helped fight" has ultimately given them more land under their control. And their occupation of those lands was only removed from the equation by way of rebellion.

Worse still, Cailan refuses Eamon's aid yet wants to wait for Orlais. Eamon's forces could be there in less then a week. Orlais' forces have to maneuver through the narrow mountain passes in the Frostbacks up around Orzammar and then move through Ferelden.

Furthermore, as you find out Loghain was told Orlais was going to bring four legions of Chevaliers. Yet Riordan tells you that two dozen divisions were on their way. And a division is larger then a legion.

[quote]Loghain made a commitment to ride to his aid in attacking the darkspawn flank, one that he failed to follow through with.[/quote]

He made that commitment under the belief that the Darkspawn wouldn't have been so numerous as to render the plan worthless. And Loghain repeatedly protested Cailan's fighting on the front lines. Even Eamon was not happy about that, because Cailan had no heir.

Cailan refused to listen to the advice and reminded them he was king.

It was his own damn fault.

[quote]If there is a formal canonical statement from a Bioware dev that what the specific details of what you say is true, then I have no problem accepting them.[/quote]

The thing is that before the retreat, Loghain was struggling to determine what to do. Looking over David Gaider's statements, I think by the time he realized the battle couldn't have been won, the Darkspawn had already surrounded Cailan's forces. 

It's not something he could've determined as the battle immediately began.

Which logistically means that from a realist's perspective charging to save Cailan is foolish. But Loghain is struggling to determine whether he should save the boy he helped raise and who was the son of his best friend or abandon him like Maric once told Loghain to do if the latter was ever faced with a situation of "Abandon the King, save the kingdom."

He only sounded the retreat when he saw the beacon being lit far too late after the signal was sent up, but even then it pained him to do so. And it's something that he deeply regrets doing, even though it was the right call.

[quote]My original charge of treason was desertion in the battlefield. To this, Orlesia is entirely irrelevant.[/quote]

No, it isn't. It adds reasons on to why he felt retreat was the best course of action beyond the sole presence of the Darkspawn's large numbers.

You're essentially ignoring the history of Thedas, and you no doubt know the saying "Only fools ignore history".

[quote]There is no strategic reason to turn away supplementary Orlesian forces. If you don't trust them, put them in the Vanguard or something[/quote]

You think they'd listen to Loghain? There's a lot of animosity between both nations still, and I highly doubt they'd say "We'll follow you, Loghain Mac Tir!"

[quote]If he accepted Orlesian aid, Orlais would bleed against the blight as well. There is no rational explanation for taking the full damage of a blight yourself when you can share it with a rival.[/quote]

Orlais is at least twice the size of Ferelden, if not more. Even if they bled, they wouldn't bleed much.

And luckily, they're bleeding currently with the Orlesian Civil War.

[quote]Even if we grant that he did though, it doesn't bode well for his sanity or competence for somehow becoming so out of touch with reality. [/quote]

Again, if you actually read that information you'll come to understand a lot more about Loghain's character, both during and after Ostagar regarding what information he did have.

[quote] the means which he pursued those goals are tyrannical and led him to wage war against his own country in his mad grab at power[/quote]

While I'll agree his means sucked horribly and his comments antagonized the Bannorn -- he is not a good politician, that much is certain -- I take issue with trying to label him a "man attempting a tyrannical overthrow". 

The Bannorn were the ones who chose to wage a civil war, during a Blight. While what Loghain said had undertones of Orlesian demands for loyalty that edge back to the Occupation -- when Ferelden places a great deal of importance on individual freedom -- the time for playing politics and potential civil war is after the Blight is dealt with.

Not during.

[sylvanaerie]

You know that saying, "All roads lead to hell"? Well, I guess the same can be said of Bioware boards. "All threads lead to Loghain". And it's discussed and rehashed, and the detractors and supporters aren't saying anything that hasn't been repeated in a multitude of threads on the boards. Almost as if everyone just copy/pasted their points. Also, when two sides are so diametrically opposed in their views, neither is going to give up their interpretation. Dragon Age is a very personal thing and each person plays it according to the dictates of their desire to have fun or explore a theme or whatever motivates them.

I enjoy Loghain as a villian, do not see much worth redeeming in him (as he is presented in the game), but I know he has his fans who do like him, and I guess it can be said he was well written (intentionally or not) if he sparks this much controversy/discussion even 3 years later.

The one time I didn't execute him was only because I figured I should see his conversations after the Landsmeet and to see an ending I hadn't seen before.  As it was right before DA2 came out I figured I wouldn't be playing much after I got the sequel.  (I did Redeemer, DR and US all in that one playthrough to see everything I could).  But I consider that my larkiest play with an insane Warden Cousland that I would never consider even close to 'canon', such as a player can say IS a canon run for them.

Also, sparing him felt 'wrong and anticlimatic' to me.  But that's just my personal opinion.

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 25 janvier 2013 - 01:17 .