EDIT2: Hopefully that fixed the format issue.
(because it helps if I put everything together in one place)
Ladies and Gentlemen, I post today in behalf of a maligned man, who's only crime (in regards to this particular case) was to fit into certain stereotypes from fantasy cliche, and do whatever it took to save his country. I speak, of course, of Loghain Mac Tir.
There have been many debates surrounding Loghain and whether or not he intentionally betrayed the King at Ostagar. Yet, if one looks at the facts, this betrayal is impossible without first assuming that Loghain is insane, which is itself incredibly far-fetched for reasons I will cover later in this post.
I will address each of the many arguments against Loghain to show once and for all, why they cannot be true, and why most of them are simply conjecture spurred forward by Protagonist-centric bigotry.
1. Was Arl Eamon poisoned before or after the battle?
This is one of the most oft repeated reasons for why Loghain is guilty. In Lothering, the player encounters a knight of Redcliffe by the name of Ser Donall. When probed by the PC, this man worriedly expresses concerns that Loghain had poisoned Eamon before the King died.
However, this testimony is clearly impossible when we put together what we know about the incident.
One need only look at the circumstances surrounding the flight of Jowan to realize Ser Donall may have been sneaking into the Templar lyrium stash.
The Facts:
1. In both the Human Noble and the Mage Origins, we learn from Duncan that the King is AT Ostagar.
2. We also know that Loghain is the general of the army and the reason many think they've been successful in the battles they've had so far -- 2 before the player arrives.
3. Jowan escapes the Circle tower right before the player sets off with Duncan.
4. Duncan constantly expresses a need to hurry back to Ostagar.
5. From Jowan's own testimony, when he was captured he was sent directly to Denerim to await execution. He remains there until Loghain shows up to give him the offer.
6. Jowan required not only time to travel to Redcliffe, but also had time to set himself up as Connors tutor and poison Arl Eamon.
Ser Donall's claim is preposterous. How would Loghain have been commanding the armies, butting heads with Cailan (who was definitely at Ostagar), AND setting up his plot with Jowan, yet somehow reaches Ostagar in advance of the PC and Duncan who is insistent that they hurry to Ostagar? Even if Loghain were hiding all the horses in Ferelden for personal use, that'd be quite a feat.
Ser Donall's testimony is garbage and needs to be discarded.
2. Loghain sided with Uldred
So what? The only evidence we have that they sided together before the battle is the suspicions of the self-admittedly prejudiced Wynne. That is not evidence at all. It's horrifying that people even use that as proof of Loghain's wrongdoing.
What we do know is that Loghain made an alliance with Uldred in hopes that he'd have Ferelden's best weapon at his side. Uldred first tried to peacefully convince the council to join Loghain, and then Wynne showed up. At that point she was rather convinced that Loghain betrayed the King at Ostagar (something I'll show she dropped later). Unfortunately here we only have the testimony of the half-asleep Niall, who displayed the virtues of the Isolationist fraternity by ignoring the rest of the world. What he does seem to recall vaguely is that Uldred started making what he thought excuses for Loghain's actions, and only after Uldred unleashed an attack on the room did he wake up from his day-dreaming. We already know that Uldred was a vocal proponent of mage freedoms and given how many Blood Mages he had on his side, it's likely that he already had supporters waiting for his signal. The battle turned against Uldred and in a panic he summoned the pride demon.
... yet none of that involved Loghain. All we know is that Loghain made an alliance with Uldred to gain the support of the mages, before or after the battle is not known... it's pure conjecture to state for a fact they made their alliance beforehand, and rather underhanded to use an assumption, Loghain's insanity, as proof for it.
3. Slavery
A terrible thing, but thankfully only the most absurd posters use it as evidence against Loghain. It doesn't matter whether Loghain betrayed Cailan or not, whether he was insane or not, we know he'd have done this.
This is a real crime that Loghain has committed. He did it to save Ferelden, but it was a crime.
4. The Murder of the Couslands
Why do people involve Loghain in this at all? We know that Howe is a very ambitious man who believes he deserves a lot more. There is a war and the normal defenses of Highever are gone on campaign.
That was the perfect time for Howe to strike. He could eliminate the Cousland family and tell the King whatever story he liked. The only indication that Loghain might be involved in their deaths is an interpretation of Howe's line to the Human Noble, and it's rather a stretch to assume Howe's talk-down must have pointed towards the family murder and not how Loghain wanted to eliminate the PC, "last" of the Couslands. It could just as easily refer to the assassins Howe urged Loghain to hire, so that's nothing definite which we can use to ascribe guilt.
5. The Battle of Ostagar
And we finally return to the scene of the "crime", Ostagar itself. Let's go over what we saw during the battle again:
1. The PC and Alistair were chosen to light the beacon due to the King's fascination with Grey Wardens.
2. Cailan insists on fighting on the front lines alongside the Wardens.
3. Loghain urges Cailan to not fight at the front
4. The PC and Alistair are delayed by the Darkspawn from underneath.
5. PC and Alistair miss the signal to light the beacon -- we don't know how long by
6. When the beacon is finally lit, Loghain makes the call to retreat.
This is where many people automatically assume Loghain betrayed the king. They believe he's a madman who despises Orlais, would do anything to stop them, and kills the King because he brought in Cheveliers from Orlais. They never stop to think: "Hey, I took quite a long time to light that beacon, maybe the battle was hopeless when I finally got there?"
But no, they run off the suspicions of Wynne and use the seemingly-villainous cutscene where Loghain tells his men to retreat. They also take their assumptions from arguments 1-4 to conclude that Loghain was a bad man and that was proof of betrayal... which is itself laughable. What people are doing here is exactly how so many false convictions happen in the justice system -- they're so prejudiced against the defendant they believe he'd commit any crime because that's just how bad he is. It's completely ridiculous because their assumptions which brought them to conclude Loghain was a bad guy were also assumptions about his involvement. "Aha! Loghain must have made plans with Uldred before the battle, ergo he planned the betrayal, ergo he must have betrayed Cailan because he was crazy about the Orlesians!"
No, seriously, that's what I've seen argued here. People assume Loghain had a plan with Uldred beforehand, just because he had an alliance we can only confirm was in effect AFTER the battle. That's proof Loghain definitely betrayed Cailan, and he betrayed Cailan because he was insane?
The only thing insane is their logic.
The only evidence that might mean Loghain had done some kind of plotting beforehand, with the poisoning
of Arl Eamon, has been debunked in Argument #1. And even that wouldn't necessarily entail regicide! If Arl Eamon was the one pushing Cailan to do the things Loghain disagreed with, he could try to remove Eamon without killing the King.
How does one make that connection in the first place? They assume Loghain was crazy. They assume Loghain was so crazy about the Orlesians that he'd have killed the King, that he knew there would be a civil war (more about that below), and that he poisoned Eamon in advance.
Too bad for them their argument falls apart here -- If Loghain were truly so crazy that he'd do anything to stop Orlais, he could have killed his own daughter and been crowned King. He could have completely avoided the Civil War from the start. We learn this from one of Loghain's conversations with Shale. A rational decision like that is NOT the hallmark of insanity.
The prosecution also conveniently forgets that sacrificing the army is completely idiotic and that we're talking about the Hero of the Dane, the strategic genius who is the only reason Ferelden is free in the first place. Again, they assume that Loghain must have been crazy to do something so stupid, but that's using their own assumptions to come to a conclusion. It's ridiculous!
Furthermore my opponents like to forget the conversation between Wynne and Loghain where they discuss the battle at Ostagar. Wynne accuses Loghain of betrayal but Loghain shoots back that she is just as guilty of "betrayal" if he is. He remarks that he had no magic to break the Darkspawn ranks. He was clearly thinking about what he could see of the battle. Wynne, a highly opinionated woman, backed down on that point. Why would she back down if she did not think there was something to Loghain's words? Why would a highly opinionated woman also admit in another conversation that she was mistaken about Loghain if she still thought he was guilty of betrayal?
The answer to that is self-evident. Loghain never betrayed Cailan, at least not intentionally.
But Asylumer, you say, if Loghain saw the battlefield, why didn't he charge in when he saw the opportunity?! I respond with: Why have a freakin' beacon in the first place?! The only reason they would even use a beacon in that situation is if they needed a scout to signal the tower for the perfect opportunity, a scout who could see the battlefield in a way Loghain could not. We ourselves could see the Darkspawn horde in the background of the "betrayal" cut-scene. Loghain could see enough of the battle to make his judgment at the time of the lighting. He might not have been in position to spot the perfect moment, but he knows enough of the plan to know when it's impossible to pull off. From his vantage he would've been able to tell that much. Again, if Wynne stuck around long enough to see Loghain's "betrayal", she would've known whether Loghain's assessment was plainly wrong or if he couldn't make an assessment at all from his view. How often does Wynne back off? She's one of the most persistent and intrusive characters in the game. Would she even consider backing down if she didn't think she was wrong?
Here is the complete conversation about Ostagar:
Loghain: You can stop scowling at me, madam.
Wynne: Did I need your permission? I see.
Loghain: Fine. I confess: It was entirely my idea that Uldred consort with demons. I had a dastardly scheme in which the utter destruction of Ferelden's best weapon would benefit me, personally.
Loghain: Are you satisfied now?
Wynne: Do you think your deal with Uldred was where you earned my contempt? I was at Ostagar. I witnessed Cailan's murder.
Loghain: Such loyalty.
Wynne: What is that supposed to
mean?
Loghain: Did you try to save him, then? My apologies.
Wynne: I was fortunate to escape with my life!
Loghain: So you didn't rush to your king's rescue? I see. Then both of us left the boy to die.
Wynne: I was no general at the head of an army! I could never have reached him!
Loghain: And I had no magic that could break those darkspawn ranks. But perhaps you think I ought to have tried, regardless. No doubt, the lives of mere soldiers are cheap in the eyes of the Circle.
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.
6. Loghain's Madness
This is it. This is the entire assumption that Loghain's guilt depends on. The prosecution accuses Loghain of going off the deep end because of his Orlesian paranoia. This madness is supposed to have driven Loghain into passively murdering Cailan with an elaborate plot, lose his strategic sense and weaken Ferelden by killing most of its army, accuse the Grey Wardens of being Orlesian agents without reason, and to do whatever it takes to keep those Orlesian bastards out of Ferelden.
This accusation is completely baseless. In fact, it has become apparent to me that this trait was tacked onto Loghain to make everything else fit, and used to determine whether Loghain betrayed Cailan in the first place. I ask the prosecution -- WTF. You make an assumption about Loghain's character and try to sledgehammer everything into place? That is intellectually despicable.
Too bad for you, the rational mind can see the holes produced by your forceful measures.
I'll start by retreading old ground. IF Loghain was truly cuckoo about Orlais, why didn't he kill off his daughter and grab the throne? A regent can be removed through the Landsmeet, a King is not so easy to dispose of.
Secondly, there is after the Landsmeet if you spare Loghain. I've seen many people remark that Loghain seems like a completely different person afterwards. Why would that be? Because they were completely wrong about him. Something the prosecution has always failed to explain is why Loghain would go from "total nut-job" to rather reasonable sort of dude after you beat him. An insane person, calmly giving up and letting the player exact judgment?
... yes, VERY INSANE /sarcasm
There is nothing to point towards Loghain being insane, nothing. He hates Orlais, so what? He has reason to. He broods on the throne during cut-scenes? Dude has a lot to think about. He accuses the player of being an Orlesian agent? Well... there's a good reason for that. I'll cover that in my conclusion.
7. Word of God
Irrational conclusion after irrational conclusion has driven the mob against Loghain. Conclusions I've shown above to have no real basis, and only prejudice to lead them. It is no surprise then that they would further leap to false conclusions which fit their prejudice from David Gaider's posts... which admittedly led the players on with rather vague wording.
David Gaider wrote...
It's interesting. "He will betray you, each time worse than the last." In my mind, the bigger crime for Loghain is that he kill *Rowan's* son -- but Loghain is definitely capable of that kind of blindness when it comes to doing what he thinks is best.
Here I will admit a lack of knowledge. I did not read the Stolen Throne/ Calling yet, so I know not *exactly* of what he's talking about... but I do know it's a prophecy and likely from a Swamp Witch (Flemeth?)
A prophecy. Those things which are often vague even when they are true. How did Loghain betray Maric? By passively killing Cailan, or by trying to kill Alistair? Gaider only hints that Loghain may have killed Rowan's son by saying it would be a bigger crime, and leads the reader on by suggesting Loghain could possibly do it.
David Gaider is one sneaky sob.
You're only going to ever get a better understanding of the why's involved in what Loghain did if you get him in the party and speak to him, but ultimately his decision was based on the fact that he didn't believe this was actually a Blight -- *couldn't* believe it, in fact, because if it was it made the witch's prophecy true and thus everything else she said true as well. Including the betrayals. About half-way through the game he realizes he is wrong, but at that point the die is already cast.
Yes... awfully vague about the betrayals Loghain is guilty of. The explanation I give for events in my conclusion is rather key to Loghain's decision. Loghain is paranoid, but not crazy.
Whether this makes what he did villainous (he had obviously already begun to act against Cailan prior to Ostagar) or misguided and too easily susceptible to Arl Rendon's poisonous words is ultimately up to the player's perception.
Again, Gaider is being vague. He had obviously begun to act against Cailan, but in what way? I understand why he's clouding the truth though. An important part of good writing is getting the audience to talk about it and have different views on a subject. But whether intentionally or not, the writing team let slip enough evidence that leaves a single plausible explanation. Perhaps they left hints because they want the player to consider the concepts of justice?
Oh, and if you want a definite Word of God, here's a clincher:
Open the Toolset -> Open the Conversation File "den600_landsmeet.dlg"-> Look at the dialogue where you confront Loghain -> Open the Localization tab and look at comments.
PC: "You were the one who fled the battle and left him to die!"
[Coerlic mocks the PC depending on origin/race]
Loghain: "You goaded him into making the charge! He believed the tales, Warden! He thought that your handful of men would turn the tide for him, strategy and consequences be hanged!
(Comments): Genuinely angry, and grieving just a little for his friend's son. He's rather believe that it was the Warden's fault that Cailan was an idiot than Cailan's fault.
I have a rather smug face as a type this, because my opponents fervently insisted that the Word of God supported them. How about another nail?
(first PC's line must be about Howe)
PC: "What do you know about justice? You left Cailan to die!
Loghain: "Warden, Cailan was Maric's son. Had there been any 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.
Perhaps the prosecution should have thought twice before they ran to the Word of God... because it damns them utterly.
8. My Conclusion
I have just proved that all accusations pointing towards an intentional betrayal by Loghain are, beyond a reasonable doubt, complete garbage. From the start my opposition has maligned Loghain, ironically, by using their own assumptions to make conclusions. This is a travesty that should appall any person who subscribes to modern industrialized nation morality. The people of Ferelden may not know better, but as a player you belong to the modern world where we've rediscovered the Ancient Greek ideal of justice -- an impartial court to determine guilt. To execute Loghain is criminal, it is vigilante justice, and perhaps most importantly, it is done under false presumptions. It is only the player and his allies prejudice that can conclude Loghain was guilty of betraying King Cailan at Ostagar -- the lens of the protagonist clouds our judgment, and only the clarity of reason can show us the truth of our actions.
Was Loghain insane? No. Misguided perhaps, but he is no less guilty than his murderers. The thirst for vengeance overcame their mind and prejudice guided their blades. It... is a very sad thing that we can be so weak to our own emotions, and in their thrall we do horrible things.
Yet Loghain still had a part to play in this travesty, and is guilty of his own mistakes. I shall now give a much more plausible scenario of the events at Ostagar and up until the Landsmeet finale:
1.We know that Cailan and Loghain fought often about the decisions surrounding this battle. Most of Loghain's complaints concerned how much Cailan trusted the Grey Wardens.
2. We know that Loghain did not believe there to be a Blight from David Gaider. It was the only definite part of his post in fact.
3. The Lighting of the Beacon was delayed. It was not the PC's fault, but that's what occurred.
4. Loghain already had reason to distrust the Wardens, and in his paranoia believed them to have deliberately delayed the beacon's lighting. This is where he jumped to a false conclusion himself.
5. When the beacon was lit, he surveyed the battlefield and felt it wasn't possible or worth sacrificing his men at that point. By now he was convinced that the Warden's had lured the king out here for a false Blight and that they were really a part of an Orlesian plot. He took the delayed tower beacon as proof of that, as he couldn't conceive that there would be another reason to not light the tower in time.
6. Believing an Orlesian invasion on the way, he made the decision to salvage all the troops he could, and called the retreat. He may have had some doubts about being able to save the King, but he was not willing to take that risk.
7. He returned to the capital and took immediate measures against the Grey Wardens. He placed a bounty on them and stopped the Warden army from entering. He became Anora's regent and begun making plans for the Civil War that was soon to start.
8. Loghain's recruitment drive angered many of the nobles, who began protesting against Loghain. There was also the old loyalty to Therin blood and they may have taken issue with the commoners who were "usurping the throne."
9. Loghain needs supporters. Howe is an opportunist who recognizes the opening, and gets in good with Loghain. He gets to be Arl of Denerim for his efforts.
10. Loghain discovers Jowan, and recalls Isolde needed a tutor. He seizes upon this opportunity to capture Jowan and use him for his own purposes -- removing Arl Eamon, who he believed would be the most outspoken against him. This is a very ruthless thing to do, but Loghain could convince himself it was necessary... especially if Howe helped convince him. We don't know how much influence Howe had there though.
11. Loghain learns of the PC's survival, and believes the PC may be an Orlesian agent. Howe convinces Loghain to hire assassins. We know he's involved there.
12. Loghain needs money badly. Either he did this alone, or with Howe's insistence. Howe is likely involved given that he is then the Arl of Denerim and dislikes the elves. We don't have enough proof to definitely say if Howe is involved though.
13. The Landsmeet. Loghain confronts the PC. He's still trying to convince himself that the PC is an Orlesian agent, though he probably realizes that the Blight is real by now, and has doubts. When the PC duels him, he gains a newfound respect for the young Warden, and realizes he may have been wrong about the PC. He is ready to accept his death for the mistakes he's made... but he never felt that he betrayed Cailan.
-------------------------------
Would anybody like to challenge the above? It is far more plausible than the "crazy Loghain" theory, given all that we know. Admittedly the Ser Donall story could've been a mistake on the teams part, because they did change around the story quite a bit and such a slip would be easy, but even if Loghain did poison Eamon before the battle it is at best circumstantial evidence pointing towards betrayal with no corroborating evidence to support it. In fact, the other evidence contradicts the idea that Loghain meant to kill Cailan at Ostagar. The view into Loghain's mind shows us that he cared deeply about Cailan, and even tried to not fault the lad for his own foolish actions by blaming the Wardens.
The defense rests.
Modifié par Asylumer, 10 janvier 2010 - 11:05 .
Retour en haut
)
