1429 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

Why does everyone say Loghain can be excused by his background?

His mother was raped, so what?

Sure, this was probably a cruel experience for him. But it does not give him the right to betray his king and hate the wardens for no reason. They were not responsible for this deed.

Besides, everyone is responsible for his own deeds. I refuse the stupid, pseudo-humanistic philosophy that says you can excuse crimes with your hard childhood.

Too assume one could not see the battlefield is shortsighted. The beacon was to be lit so that he could charge in yes, but that's not to say that he couldn't see the battle, it's just to say that he couldn't see get the signal that Alistar could to signify the right time to join in.

Loghain couldn´t see the battlefield. This is why there was the need for the signal beacon. Duncan tells that the beacon is needed to signal when Loghain should attack. If Loghain could see the battlefield, the beacon would have been unnecessary. That´s the fact. Arguing about it shows your complete inability to accept the truth.

[jsachun]

klarabella wrote...

If he could oversee the battlefield why would he need the beacon to be lit? He could've decided for himself when to join the battle. So he probably couldn't see it, I take it.

Look the whole tactic was to lure the darkspawn in to the gorge & Loghain was to flank them from behind effectively creating a raw darkspawn sandwich.

Regardless of whether Loghain could see the battle or not, does not matter. The signal was to attack not to retreat.

Modifié par jsachun, 11 janvier 2010 - 12:50 .

[Asylumer]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You cannot make decisions about how a battle plan works wihout having a clear overview of the battle.
either he knows enough for both or he doesn't know enouugh for either. There is no in-between.

Even if what you say is possible, then he shoukld have charged to get the king the second he though things were starting to go wrong.

Hmm.. it's something to consider, but you're wrong about there being no in-between. If the only point he could see the Darkspawn was when they had completely overrun the front lines he could deduce that there was no way to get to the King in time without sacrificing most of his men. We sadly have no way to know that.

We do know that:
A) The beacon was required, for whatever reason
Wynne saw enough of the battlefield to think Loghain a traitor, yet also judge whether he saw the Darkspawn ranks.

Admittedly we don't know exactly how much of the battlefield Loghain could see, but that is nothing definite pointing towards or against Loghain. IF he could see enough of the battle to intercede on the King's behalf, sure, that'd be a strong case against Loghain, but we don't know that. IF he could see only when the defense was hopeless, and he mistakenly concluded that Ferelden would need to preserve its forces against multiple threats, he'd preserve all the men he could for the upcoming war instead of throwing them away to a near hopeless cause.

[robertthebard]

The whole argument is full of half truths and denials, and not even plausible ones. The fact that Loghain tells Cailin at the pre-battle strategy meeting that lighting the beacon isn't dangerous, but is vital means that Loghain feels that it is vital to his plan. I'm waiting for the "but it wasn't Loghain's plan" argument to surface, it's just about due. Whether Loghain intended to kill Cailin initially or not is a moot point, since once Cailin is committed to the front lines, Loghain continues with his plan. The poisoning of Eamon, and Howe's actions prior to Ostagar don't bode well for Loghain's intentions. Of course, if Connor hadn't made the deal with the Desire Demon, then nobody would have been able to catch Loghain at that one. Eamon would have died.



Barring City Elf origins where Vaughn dies, we know that the actual Arl of Denerim is in the dungeon of the Arl's estate, put there by Howe, and yet Howe is given the Arling of Denerim, by Loghain. This isn't supposition, but is in the cutscene where we're talking with Eamon immediately after arriving in Denerim for the Landsmeet part of the game, and Cauthrien, Howe and Loghain come into Eamon's estate. It's where you get to call Howe a bootlicker. The funny thing is, Howe's family fought with Orlais during the occupation, until they knew it was a losing cause, and switched sides. You find this out in the HN origin, if you talk to the old guy in the library, and help him teach your family history to the squires.

[Sabriana]

robertthebard wrote...

Barring City Elf origins where Vaughn dies, we know that the actual Arl of Denerim is in the dungeon of the Arl's estate, put there by Howe, and yet Howe is given the Arling of Denerim, by Loghain. This isn't supposition, but is in the cutscene where we're talking with Eamon immediately after arriving in Denerim for the Landsmeet part of the game, and Cauthrien, Howe and Loghain come into Eamon's estate. It's where you get to call Howe a bootlicker. The funny thing is, Howe's family fought with Orlais during the occupation, until they knew it was a losing cause, and switched sides. You find this out in the HN origin, if you talk to the old guy in the library, and help him teach your family history to the squires.

You know, I always thought that to be very odd. How was it possible to imprison the heir to the ruler (arl) in Denerim without there being a lot of questions asked. Vaughn wasn't just any old noble, he was the true arl of Denerim. It was very risky to have him alive, and in Denerim. Wouldn't it have been safer to just have him die, or at least remove him to the outskirts of Ferelden for the duration? Loghain and Howe risked much in behaving like this.

Same goes for siding with Howe. It makes sense in the way that D. Gaider explains it in the other post I quoted further up, but for a man like Loghain, anything that smells even slightly like "Orlais sympathiser" would be (or should be) highly suspicious.

[Asylumer]

soteria wrote...

I notice you conveniently ignore or casually dismiss the points you can't contend with, such as the timing of the order to kill Arl Eamon, and whether timing is even relevant. Why kill Arl Eamon if he was innocent? Why accuse the Grey Wardens of murdering Cailan and send assassins after them?

Both of those are covered in my scenario for what really happened... I ignore the posts which ignore what's been covered. Sorry if that bothers you.

But I'll go over it again, just because I'm that nice:

1. We don't know enough about Eamon to say exactly why Loghain poisoned him, but we do know Loghain is ruthless enough when he has a cause. If he suspected Eamon would stand in his way when he needed to unite Ferelden, you can be damn sure he'd remove the Arl.

2. At that point he took the delayed signal to be proof of an Orlesian plot. That's his delusion. How many times must I say it? He was already against the Wardens at that point and leaped to a false conclusion.

That's why he's so convinced the Wardens and the PC are Orlesian agents.

No, that is not undisputed fact, and I invited scrutiny on my scenario -- yes, scenario, not meant to be taken as proof but meant to recreate what happened. We have no direct evidence pointing towards or against Loghain's betrayal besides the Localization Comments in the Toolset -- and those seem rather contradictory for reasons I mentioned earlier.

I'm addressing disputes that are relevant to my reconstruction. I didn't intend to repeat my arguments but unfortunately I've been forced to because some people have the gall to come ranting at me without bothering to understand my arguments in the first place.

Furthermore, I have been given arguments which made me think about my scenario, and there are certain holes I'm interested in filling in. But nobody has yet even tried creating a counter-scenario which is remotely plausible. I've given my reasons to prove Loghain was sane at the time of the Landsmeet, but just because he's sane doesn't mean he doesn't make stupid mistakes. My scenario for the events is the most plausible I've seen for that reason. We see a lot from Loghain that tells us he cares little for power. He is too sane to have murdered Anora and gives up too easily for an insane person. Fear for ones life is a rational thought, so one cannot say that a sword miraculously cured him of madness.

That still leaves another possiblity though. That Loghain was sane but still thought it best to kill Cailan.

Loghain is supposed to be a master strategist. Would he sacrifice most of the army if he suspected Orlais was incoming? Why would he remove the King in such a self-destructive manner when there are better means to accomplish such? To assume Loghain was simply stupid is ridiculous. That's not his character, that is not the Hero of the Dane. It's rather arrogant to call anyone who's actions you don't understand stupid before accounting for all the facts.

EDIT: Before somebody takes my usage of stupid the wrong way, I meant it differently in both instances. One can expect a master strategist to make stupid mistakes when it comes to logic and his own prejudices. One cannot expect a master strategist to screw up in what he's good at, not without it being highly unlikely.

Modifié par Asylumer, 11 janvier 2010 - 01:30 .

[Xandurpein]

There is simply no reason to believe that Loghain was unable to see the battlefield at a certain time of the battle, yet able to see it later. Either he could see or he didn't. As an excellent commander he must understand the value of seeing the battlefield for himself. It would take a lot to keep him away from watching, even if it was difficult, so if he had a chance he would have watched it all the time.



I am currently wondering if the importance of the beacon was in fact to provide Loghain with an excuse for his actions. If he could get a view of the battlefield, even of just parts of it, it should have been relatively easy for him to time his strike. One of the few times in a battle when it is clear to everyone watching what is happening is when the lines first collide and that would have been the optimum time for him to strike.



If we introduce the beacon, then it's no longer a question of Loghain being able to time his strike right, but of two Grey Wardens to get the signal through. This technically absolves Loghain of responsibility, which would fit Loghain's purpose perfectly, if he ment to betray Cailen.

[KnightofPhoenix]

On the issue of the beacon, people are forgetting an important variable. Time. If a signal is lit much later than expected, then we could presume that something went wrong or that it's too late. Loghain might not see the battle, but the plan was that the beacon be lit as soon as the darkspawn are drawn in and that did't happen. So it is entirely possible that he thought the battle was lost by that point. Was he entertaining thoughts about retreating before the battle? Perhaps, but there is no proof that he was planing it all along. The poisoning of Eammon has little to do with his plans at Ostagar. 

Once again I ask, if Loghain never intended to attack when the beacon was lit, then why did he wait for it in the first place? If he supposedely planned that the beacon would not be lit, then why wait for it? It makes little sense to say that Loghain planned this alll along and he retreated only when the beacon was lit, because it was funny.
Some will say "He retreated when the beacon was lit because by then, he would know that they need him". The entire plan is based upon them needing Loghain and that's why the beacon was to be lit as soon as possible. So it's not that.

So if anyone can provide me an explanation as to why Loghain waited for the beacon to be lit, if he supposeedly never planned to join the battle.  

[Asylumer]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

So if anyone can provide me an explanation as to why Loghain waited for the beacon to be lit, if he supposeedly never planned to join the battle.  

To be fair, if Loghain wanted an excuse to avoid the battle, he'd be interested in whether or not the beacon was lit. If it weren't lit there would be less suspicion against him. That's an if, but has no proof to back it. Sacrificing the army just to kill the King also plays against his role as a master strategist.

[soteria]

Asylumer, you keep on referring back to your OP, as though what is written there is indisputable. It's not, or we wouldn't be posting here. Your arguments in the OP are frankly not that convincing.

We do know that:

A) The beacon was required, for whatever reason

Wynne saw enough of the battlefield to think Loghain a traitor, yet also judge whether he saw the Darkspawn ranks.

Except he doesn't even claim to have seen the darkspawn ranks in your quote. He just says he didn't have magic to break through the darkspawn ranks. Why are you even using this? It's not evidence that he surveyed the battlefield; the whole conversation is just his saying that she didn't try to save him, either.



You're also ignoring the nature of battle itself. Choosing the right moment to act even in a modern battle with radio communication and satellites is not a precise matter. It's likely that the "precise moment" Alistair was supposed to be looking for was a signal that the darkspawn were fully engaged. Loghain could not assess the situation, yet when he received the situation, he retreated. I mean, seriously. How would he know the signal was "too late"? He didn't have a watch. Battles aren't like an RTS where you can look down from a birds-eye view and check the health of all the units involved.

[soteria]

To be fair, if Loghain wanted an excuse to avoid the battle, he'd be interested in whether or not the beacon was lit. If it weren't lit there would be less suspicion against him. That's an if, but has no proof to back it. Sacrificing the army just to kill the King also plays against his role as a master strategist.

Judging from later events, the army that he sacrificed didn't constitute a huge part of Ferelden's military strength. This is a feudal nation; most of the troops came from the various nobles. He sacrificed a force that was loyal to Cailan, not the entire army. Judging from the cutscene, it wasn't even the best trained or equipped part of the army. Compare the appearance of Loghain's troops to those of Cailan.

[soteria]

...But nobody has yet even tried creating a counter-scenario which is remotely plausible...

Lol. You're ridiculous, and I'm done talking to you.

[robertthebard]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

On the issue of the beacon, people are forgetting an important variable. Time. If a signal is lit much later than expected, then we could presume that something went wrong or that it's too late. Loghain might not see the battle, but the plan was that the beacon be lit as soon as the darkspawn are drawn in and that did't happen. So it is entirely possible that he thought the battle was lost by that point. Was he entertaining thoughts about retreating before the battle? Perhaps, but there is no proof that he was planing it all along. The poisoning of Eammon has little to do with his plans at Ostagar. 

Once again I ask, if Loghain never intended to attack when the beacon was lit, then why did he wait for it in the first place? If he supposedely planned that the beacon would not be lit, then why wait for it? It makes little sense to say that Loghain planned this alll along and he retreated only when the beacon was lit, because it was funny.
Some will say "He retreated when the beacon was lit because by then, he would know that they need him". The entire plan is based upon them needing Loghain and that's why the beacon was to be lit as soon as possible. So it's not that.

So if anyone can provide me an explanation as to why Loghain waited for the beacon to be lit, if he supposeedly never planned to join the battle.  

Can you pretzel this up much more?  You essentially state both sides here trying to say what?  He was justified in leaving after the signal to charge was lit because it took too long?  As soon as possible is not the condition.  The condition is that the darkspawn forces are indeed committed to the attack, instead of just a feint to test the resolve of the initial contact with the enemy.  Once it's established that they are indeed committed to the attack, the signal is to be given to light the beacon and Loghain is to charge.  We don't see the signal, or when it's given, or if it's given.  We do see Loghain watch the beacon light up, and sound the retreat.

[Asylumer]

soteria wrote...

Asylumer, you keep on referring back to your OP, as though what is written there is indisputable. It's not, or we wouldn't be posting here. Your arguments in the OP are frankly not that convincing.

To the deluded, no argument is convincing.

Except he doesn't even claim to have seen the darkspawn ranks in your
quote. He just says he didn't have magic to break through the darkspawn
ranks. Why are you even using this? It's not evidence that he surveyed
the battlefield; the whole conversation is just his saying that she
didn't try to save him, either.

Think about it. If Wynne is convinced that Loghian could survey the battlefield enough to condemn him, she'd also be able to tell if he had any reason to make his analysis of the Darkspawn numbers. If Loghain wasn't in any position to judge then she'd have shot him down. Right there he gave his reason for why he couldn't save Cailan without throwing away the lives of many men.

You're also ignoring the nature of battle itself. Choosing the right moment to act even in a modern battle with radio communication and satellites is not a precise matter. It's likely that the "precise moment" Alistair was supposed to be looking for was a signal that the darkspawn were fully engaged. Loghain could not assess the situation, yet when he received the situation, he retreated. I mean, seriously. How would he know the signal was "too late"? He didn't have a watch. Battles aren't like an RTS where you can look down from a birds-eye view and check the health of all the units involved.

And you're ignoring Loghain's perception of time and the battlefield. Refer to the above for why it's almost certain that he could make the call in the first place. As the one who planned the strategy he'd have a faint clue about whether or not something was amiss, but couldn't risk running right into the path of the Darkspawn horde because as you said, he'd need a scout of some kind to send the beacon signal. So I agree that time alone isn't enough to justify Loghain retreating, but Wynne's conversation points strongly towards him being able to spot the horde in some manner.

If the defensive line was completely broken by the time Loghain was able to see signs of the Darkspawn horde, and he could see that the line was broken, he'd realize a charge at this point would be suicide. A flank is not a true flank if there's only one army on your side.

[eschilde]

Sabriana wrote...

You know, I always thought that to be very odd. How was it possible to imprison the heir to the ruler (arl) in Denerim without there being a lot of questions asked. Vaughn wasn't just any old noble, he was the true arl of Denerim. It was very risky to have him alive, and in Denerim. Wouldn't it have been safer to just have him die, or at least remove him to the outskirts of Ferelden for the duration? Loghain and Howe risked much in behaving like this.

Same goes for siding with Howe. It makes sense in the way that D. Gaider explains it in the other post I quoted further up, but for a man like Loghain, anything that smells even slightly like "Orlais sympathiser" would be (or should be) highly suspicious.

Well, the other nobles presumably knew both about the plague and the elven uprising in the Alienage. Vaughn says it himself when you talk to him, "One more victim of the elven uprising." Given that there's a lot more than just what's going on in the Alienage to worry about, it's not that surprising. I also find it strange that Vaughn would still be alive, considering how Howe handled the Couslands. Maybe he just didn't have time to deal with him yet?

About Howe's family sympathizing with the Orlesians.. I'm reaching here, but I'm guessing that Loghain's willing to put aside family history in favor of current events. Howe certainly comes off as anti-Orlesian, and he's pretty much the only powerful noble who's willing to side with Loghain without a lot of questions. He's also easy to reward by a guy in Loghain's position, given that his ambitions tend to be pretty obvious. Maybe that's enough.

Xandurpein wrote...

There is simply no reason to believe that Loghain was unable to see the battlefield at a certain time of the battle, yet able to see it later. Either he could see or he didn't. As an excellent commander he must understand the value of seeing the battlefield for himself. It would take a lot to keep him away from watching, even if it was difficult, so if he had a chance he would have watched it all the time.

I disagree with this. A great commander doesn't need to see the battlefield; he needs to have a fluid idea of what the battlefield is likely to look like and have good signals. The reality is, especially in medieval times, a commander might not have the ability to oversee the whole battlefield; that's not something you can really argue, since terrain and conditions (weather, enemy numbers) can always change. Using signals isn't something at all unheard of. 

Whether using the beacon was a good idea is what is questionable, given that he definitely did know there were tunnels leading up to the Tower. He knew it could possibly compromised. Though I seriously doubt that he somehow let the darkspawn in on it, he definitely made a big mistake by not securing it properly.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

So if anyone can provide me an explanation as to why Loghain waited for the beacon to be lit, if he supposeedly never planned to join the battle.  

This is also something strange, but I've theorized that Loghain didn't decide his course of action until actually seeing the beacon. It's feasible that he didn't intend to pull out, but given the amount of time he spent waiting for the beacon (3 full floors of fighting darkspawn for the Wardens, which could easily take maybe a couple of hours), he may also have been on edge trying to decide whether or not he should go. The beacon was the point where he had to make a tough decision. I don't want to really analyze the cut scene, since expressions and tones of voices can be open to interpretation, but it does seem like there's a little bit of hesitation when he says, "Sound.. the retreat." 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Asylumer wrote...
2. At that point he took the delayed signal to be proof of an Orlesian plot. That's his delusion. How many times must I say it? He was already against the Wardens at that point and leaped to a false conclusion.

How can he know the signal is late? If he knows when the signal is to arrive, there's no need for it.
If he can see the fron lines, then there's no need for it either.
The tower is in a high position so both Loghains forces(in hiding, probably behind a hill or something)) and Cailans can see it. Also both forces can be seen from the tall tower.

That make it easy for whomever is in the tower to pick up a singnal from Cailan and light the fire to signal Loghain.

All of your assumptions basicly needlesly complicate Loghains plan. I though he was a master strategist? Why then would he introduce so many usless elements?

Either the beacon was cruical to his plan, or it was not.


And I say again - there is no middle ground. No commadner can make tactical decisions for hte whole battlefield if he can only observe a small portion of it. This would be the prie example of acting wiht too little information.

[robertthebard]

Asylumer wrote...

soteria wrote...

I notice you conveniently ignore or casually dismiss the points you can't contend with, such as the timing of the order to kill Arl Eamon, and whether timing is even relevant. Why kill Arl Eamon if he was innocent? Why accuse the Grey Wardens of murdering Cailan and send assassins after them?

Both of those are covered in my scenario for what really happened... I ignore the posts which ignore what's been covered. Sorry if that bothers you.

But I'll go over it again, just because I'm that nice:

1. We don't know enough about Eamon to say exactly why Loghain poisoned him, but we do know Loghain is ruthless enough when he has a cause. If he suspected Eamon would stand in his way when he needed to unite Ferelden, you can be damn sure he'd remove the Arl.

Yet this point is refuted by Eamon himself in Redcliffe.  If Loghain cannot be stopped, it will be necessary to surrender to him in order to unite Ferelden against the Blight.  This because Alistair doesn't want to be King.

2. At that point he took the delayed signal to be proof of an Orlesian plot. That's his delusion. How many times must I say it? He was already against the Wardens at that point and leaped to a false conclusion.

That's why he's so convinced the Wardens and the PC are Orlesian agents.

No, that is not undisputed fact, and I invited scrutiny on my scenario -- yes, scenario, not meant to be taken as proof but meant to recreate what happened. We have no direct evidence pointing towards or against Loghain's betrayal besides the Localization Comments in the Toolset -- and those seem rather contradictory for reasons I mentioned earlier.

I'm addressing disputes that are relevant to my reconstruction. I didn't intend to repeat my arguments but unfortunately I've been forced to because some people have the gall to come ranting at me without bothering to understand my arguments in the first place.

Furthermore, I have been given arguments which made me think about my scenario, and there are certain holes I'm interested in filling in. But nobody has yet even tried creating a counter-scenario which is remotely plausible. I've given my reasons to prove Loghain was sane at the time of the Landsmeet, but just because he's sane doesn't mean he doesn't make stupid mistakes. My scenario for the events is the most plausible I've seen for that reason. We see a lot from Loghain that tells us he cares little for power. He is too sane to have murdered Anora and gives up too easily for an insane person. Fear for ones life is a rational thought, so one cannot say that a sword miraculously cured him of madness.

Yeah, because events in game, as laid out by NPC's in dialog isn't a counter scenario, despite the fact that you are trying to counter that scenario.

That still leaves another possiblity though. That Loghain was sane but still thought it best to kill Cailan.

Loghain is supposed to be a master strategist. Would he sacrifice most of the army if he suspected Orlais was incoming? Why would he remove the King in such a self-destructive manner when there are better means to accomplish such? To assume Loghain was simply stupid is ridiculous. That's not his character, that is not the Hero of the Dane. It's rather arrogant to call anyone who's actions you don't understand stupid before accounting for all the facts.

EDIT: Before somebody takes my usage of stupid the wrong way, I meant it differently in both instances. One can expect a master strategist to make stupid mistakes when it comes to logic and his own prejudices. One cannot expect a master strategist to screw up in what he's good at, not without it being highly unlikely.

This would be the easiest way to remove Cailin.  Cailin insisted on being on the front lines, after all.  If any of his men heard this discussion, and survived, such as Wynne, for example, it would give him plausible deniability, and allow him to make the comment he makes to Anora when she straight out asks if he killed Cailin, which was;  "Cailin's death was his own doing".  Cailin did indeed insist on being on the front lines, despite Loghain attempting to talk him out of it.  Thus, go ahead with the plan, and let Cailin fall.  If he intends to unite Ferelden under his banner, he's going to need Cailin dead anyway, since it would be harder to wrest the throne from Cailin than Anora.  I did point this out pages ago, but you again chose to ignore it, because you don't like me.  Which is all well and good, but doesn't change the fact that with Cailin alive, Loghain has zero chance of gaining the throne.

He didn't scew up, as far as his plan was concerned, other than Flemeth saving the two Grey Wardens at the Tower of Ishal, his plan was a booming success.  He killed Cailin, and almost killed all the Grey Wardens in Ferelden.  This after turning Orlesian forces back at the border.  So, no Orlesians are coming, and no "Orlesian spy Grey Wardens" in Ferelden either.  Yet he's not insane?  None of my PC's are Orlesian.

[Fanghorne]

Defend an immoral deserter? Sorry, an nice veiled attempt to "raise reasonable doubt."

Sometimes and some people are defenseless...

Hes a bastard. I'd kill him every game, every run through, and beyond...



My favorite is defending someone who hires assassins to murder you LOL.

/priceless

[Lotion Soronarr]

Asylumer wrote...
Think about it. If Wynne is convinced that Loghian could survey the battlefield enough to condemn him, she'd also be able to tell if he had any reason to make his analysis of the Darkspawn numbers. If Loghain wasn't in any position to judge then she'd have shot him down. Right there he gave his reason for why he couldn't save Cailan without throwing away the lives of many men.

There was litlte thing like..you know....THE BEACON!!!!

[Ariella]

Xandurpein wrote...

There is simply no reason to believe that Loghain was unable to see the battlefield at a certain time of the battle, yet able to see it later. Either he could see or he didn't. As an excellent commander he must understand the value of seeing the battlefield for himself. It would take a lot to keep him away from watching, even if it was difficult, so if he had a chance he would have watched it all the time.

There is simply no reason to believe that Loghain could not see the battlefiend, unless one listens to the plan and understands that Loghain's forces are to be flanking the darspawn from COVER, thus no exactly in a position to see what's going on, thus why they needed a signal.

[eschilde]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

How can he know the signal is late? If he knows when the signal is to arrive, there's no need for it.
If he can see the fron lines, then there's no need for it either.
The tower is in a high position so both Loghains forces(in hiding, probably behind a hill or something)) and Cailans can see it. Also both forces can be seen from the tall tower.

That make it easy for whomever is in the tower to pick up a singnal from Cailan and light the fire to signal Loghain.

All of your assumptions basicly needlesly complicate Loghains plan. I though he was a master strategist? Why then would he introduce so many usless elements?

Either the beacon was cruical to his plan, or it was not.


And I say again - there is no middle ground. No commadner can make tactical decisions for hte whole battlefield if he can only observe a small portion of it. This would be the prie example of acting wiht too little information.

So what, people never used signals before? There have never been battles fought where commanders didn't sit on top of a tower looking down on everyone? Are you kidding? There are times when commanders have no choice. This is why they implement signals.

If Loghain is assuming the signal is late (which we don't know, we're only theorizing), it is because an unreasonable amount of time has passed before the signal is lit. It's not because he was expecting the signal to be lit at 19:23 on the dot, or something. He doesn't have a stopwatch timing the Wardens as they run up the tower.

[Archonsg]

Egads! Love this thread, it has been very interesting reading trying to catch what I can when I can at work using my mobile.

Though, you guys should realize that in a society where a duel can decide the outcome of one's fate, it doesn't really matter if Loghain is guilty or not.

Ultimately the victor of the duel decides whether or not he deserves death, which in Alistair's case if you allow him to duel, he doesn't even stop to ask (Hah! For all those who says he's indecisive!) and its off with the traitor's head.

IF you however are left to make the decision, then well, you just have to ask yourself, which is more important to you, (remember, at this point you DO NOT YET KNOW that the only way to kill an Archdemon is to have a warden sacrifice his life) having an extra sword (and you do not know yet that Alistair leave in disgust if you spare Loghain) is worth the pardon or if you can forgive all that he has done to you *personally* Which includes sending assassins, setting up ambushes and smearing your name and naming you falsely a traitor all because he believes that your loyalties and intent are only for the benefit of Orlai even though you are a native Felreldan.



IF you can answer "yes" you can forgive what he has done to you, all the more power to you.



Me, personally, I won the duel, and I'll take off his head if I so feel darn like it. So sue me, or better yet, duel me.

[Tirigon]

It´s simple. Even if Loghain had NOT planned his treachery, he did commit it. Murder is not less of a crime because you do it out of an immediate idea and without a plan. So why does it matter if he planned to betray the king? He did it.

[sethroskull79]

So the ultimate question....whose stats are better? Allistair or Loghain? I think I could forgive him.

[eschilde]

sethroskull79 wrote...

So the ultimate question....whose stats are better? Allistair or Loghain? I think I could forgive him.

Well.. given that you spent most of the game building Alistair the way you want him, you're probably going to like his setup better. Also, he walks off with your armor if you let Loghain live.